Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matter of Michael SORRENTINO, Petitioner, v. Antonia C. NOVELLO, Commissioner, New York State Department of Health, Respondent.
Petitioner is a 39-year-old man diagnosed with limb-girdle muscular dystrophy. Respondent denied petitioner's request for the purchase of an LCM Standing Power Wheelchair based upon a lack of medical justification. At the fair hearing challenging the denial of his request, petitioner and his treating physician testified that petitioner could propel himself only a few feet at a time in his manual wheelchair. Petitioner's physician further testified that continued use of the manual wheelchair will result in overuse syndrome, a condition involving the breakdown of muscles, and that use of a power wheelchair would prevent petitioner from developing that condition. Petitioner's physician also testified that a wheelchair with a standing feature would promote circulation, bone density, and bladder and bowel function, and would prevent pressure sores, contractures, loss of muscle mass and muscle atrophy. In addition, petitioner presented evidence that the standing feature would minimize the risk of injury from falling. Finally, petitioner and his physician testified that other devices are not reasonable alternatives to the requested wheelchair because the use of those devices requires the assistance of another person, and such assistance is not available in petitioner's household. Because respondent offered no contrary proof, the determination that the requested wheelchair is not medically necessary is not supported by substantial evidence (see Social Services Law § 365-a; Matter of Gartz v. Wing, 236 A.D.2d 890, 891, 654 N.Y.S.2d 702; Matter of Dobson v. Perales, 175 A.D.2d 628, 572 N.Y.S.2d 562).
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously annulled on the law without costs and the petition is granted.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 14, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)