Legal Opinion
Tahir v. Progressive Casualty Insurance
New York Supreme Court
Decided April 18, 2006PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Diane A. Lebedeff, J.
These two cases were consolidated for trial and center upon a no-fault health services provider’s claim for compensation for charges for an electrical diagnostic test identified as current perception threshold testing, also known as sensory nerve conduction threshold testing. Contending that compensation must be denied for these no-fault claims, defendant advances two novel arguments: (1) the medical tests are not compensable under Medicare, and (2) the medical tests are so questionable that such testing constitutes “provider fraud.”
CPT and sNCT Testing
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Presbyterian Hospital v. Maryland Casualty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1997
- Central General Hospital v. Chubb Group of Insurance CompaniesNew York Court of Appeals · 1997
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. MallelaNew York Court of Appeals · 2005
- Oberly v. Bangs Ambulance, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2001
- Roth v. MichelsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v. Progressive Insurance Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Allstate Insurance v. Valley Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, P.C.District Court, E.D. New York · 2007
- Complete Orthopedic Supplies, Inc. v. State Farm InsuranceCivil Court of the City of New York · 2007
- Allstate Ins. v. VALLEY PHYSICAL MEDICINE & REHAB.District Court, E.D. New York · 2007