fbpx

State Farm v. 664987

In State Farm v. 664987 filed in 2021, State Farm claimed that a PTP was taking place. 

The chiropractors would write in their notes “patient scheduled with MD for EMC” implying the MD would automatically provide a positive finding of EMC vs something like “patient scheduled with MD for an evaluation to confirm/deny if patient sustained an EMC.

Nearly all patients were given a positive finding of an EMC by the in-house medical doctors.

Patients virtually always received the same combination of passive therapies: manual therapy, chiropractic manipulations, cold laser billed as 97039, and cervical traction; and one active therapy- therapeutic exercises (wobble chair).

Patients almost always received a TENS unit on their first visit.

Treatment plans do not document the types of modalities, the frequency (ie as needed, every visit, etc), or any specific types of active treatments to be performed, nor do they describe which body parts should be the focus of each therapy. 

Virtually every initial exam states the patient should return for treatment “3XWEEK” regardless of the nature and severity of their injury or the length of time since their accident.

Many patients perform the DXD Cervical Radiographic Spinal Analyses which always reflects the patients suffer from “ligamentous instability” in their cervical spine region.  The findings are never integrated into the treatment plan, even though a true ligamentous instability is a contraindication for performing chiropractic manipulations and traction to the neck.

DISCLAIMER

This is based on a real court case that was previously filed against a medical provider/doctor.  The case number has been partially redacted and names have been changed to protect the Defendants’ names.  This example is posted to help educate others on the laws and potential pitfalls.  This posting is not intended to embarrass or defame anyone.   I have limited the information and simplified some of the facts in the lawsuit to reflect key points and make a complicated case easier to understand.  This “example” is directly from a complaint filed by an insurance company, therefore, I am using the facts THEY presented.  There are always two sides to a story so please understand this is just one side of the story.  This information was found through records available to the public.

Interested in learning more?

We offer free initial consultations to assess your case. Call 1-800-378-1242 for personalized legal services from start to finish!
Skip to content