GREAT WALL ACUPUNCTURE v. GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY

Reset A A Font size: Print

GREAT WALL ACUPUNCTURE, P.C. a/a/o Maria Gonzalez, Appellant, v. GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

Decided: November 17, 2009

PRESENT: WESTON, J.P., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Leslie J. Purificacion, J.), entered March 18, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant had partially paid plaintiff's claim prior to the commencement of the action. At trial, the parties stipulated to plaintiff's prima facie case and further agreed that defendant had timely denied the unpaid portion of the claim on the ground that the charges for acupuncture treatments exceeded the maximum fees under the appropriate fee schedule. Additionally, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the claim form and the denial of claim form were admitted into evidence. After a nonjury trial on the issue of the propriety of the fees charged, the Civil Court granted judgment to defendant dismissing the complaint, and this appeal by plaintiff ensued.

A person who seeks to practice acupuncture must be either licensed (Education Law § 8214) or certified (Education Law § 8216) to do so (see Education Law § 8212). The training to obtain a license remains the same even if the person seeking to practice acupuncture has a license in a different profession, such as a chiropractic license (see 8 NYCRR 52.16[b]; cf. 8 NYCRR 52.16[a] ). Indeed, at trial, plaintiff's witness, who was both a licensed acupuncturist and a licensed chiropractor, so testified. Accordingly, in light of the licensure requirements, we hold, as a matter of law, that an insurer may use the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors to determine the amount which a licensed acupuncturist is entitled to receive for such acupuncture services (see Great Wall Acupuncture v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 16 Misc.3d 23, 842 N.Y.S.2d 131 [App. Term, 2d & 11th Jud. Dists. 2007]; see also AVA Acupuncture, P.C. v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 23 Misc.3d 140(A), 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 51017(U), 2009 WL 1470442 [App. Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2009]; AVA Acupuncture, P.C. v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 17 Misc.3d 41, 844 N.Y.S.2d 570 [App. Term, 2d & 11th Jud. Dists. 2007]; 2004 Ops. Gen. Counsel N.Y. Ins. Dept. No. 04-10-03 [Oct. 2004] [http://www.ins.state.ny.us/ogco 2004/rg041003.htm ] ). Consequently, since it is undisputed that the instant defendant reimbursed plaintiff pursuant to the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services rendered by a chiropractor, plaintiff is not entitled to any additional reimbursement. Accordingly, the judgment dismissing the complaint is affirmed.