.

SIU Spotlight

Understanding Reimbursements for CPT Code 97039

SIU Spotlight, Issue 1, Vol. 1, July 2024

July 1, 2024

CPT code 97039 has been in a state of constant flux in Florida and recent rulings have created greater change. First, one must understand what 97039 is and its history. According to the American Medical Association (AMA), CPT code 97039 is a medical procedure that falls under “Constant Attendance Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Modalities.” This requires direct one-on-one contact with the patient by the provider. This means the provider performs the treatment directly and said treatment should not be performed contemporaneously with another procedure. Only the actual time of the skilled therapist’s direct contact with the patient is covered. CPT code 97039 is used when a therapy modality does not have a specific code that is reimbursable under Medicare. 

Typically, this code was reimbursed at $15.00 under the Florida Workers’ Compensation fee schedule. However, things changed after United Automobile Insurance Company v. Lauderhill Medical Center LLC a/a/o Robert White, 350 So.3d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022). The Fourth District Court of Appeals (DCA) held that the actual treatment and the services control, not the billed CPT code. If a CPT code is no longer recognized but reimbursable, then the insurer cannot simply default to the Workers’ Compensation Fee Schedule. If the CPT code is no longer valid but the service remains reimbursable under Medicare, then the insurance carrier must make a reasonable analysis determination. That is, if the carrier determines the charge to be reasonable, it should reimburse 80% of the usual and customary charges. 

When a carrier sees CPT code 97039 on a CMS 1500 form, it must look beyond the code and review the medical records in order to make a determination of what modality or treatment service was truly rendered. The carrier must then analyze whether “this service [is] reimbursable under Medicare.” Id. This begs the question, “When can a carrier default to the Florida Workers’ Compensation Fee Schedule rate of $15.00?” The court seemed to allow reimbursement under the Workers’ Compensation Fee Schedule when the service is not reimbursable under Medicare. See Id. An example of this would be if a provider submits a bill using CPT 97039, and the modality of treatment provided was “dry hydrotherapy.” Dry hydrotherapy is not a reimbursable code under the Medicare Coding and Policy guidelines. Specifically, Medicare has made a decision that dry hydrotherapy is an investigatory procedure and considered not reasonable or medically necessary. See CMS.gov Memorandum L35036 re: Therapy and Rehabilitation Services (PT, OT). As such, the proper reimbursement rate would be under the Workers’ Compensation Guidelines. See, United Automobile Insurance Company v. Lauderhill Medical Center LLC a/a/o Robert White, (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

Another example would be if the provider submits CPT code 97039 for reimbursement, and the treatment render was for Whirlpool therapy. Whirlpool therapy under Medicare Coding and Policy guidelines is billable under CPT code 97022. See, CMS.gov Memorandum A53058 re: Billing and Coding: Home Health Physical Therapy. CPT code 97022 is still an active CPT code under Medicare and still shows reimbursement amounts under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. However, Medicare’s coding policy does require separate documentation reflecting medical necessity for the procedure. See Id. If the medical records are unquestionable and explicit that treatment was rendered for Whirlpool therapy and the CPT code billed was 97039, a carrier may “crosswalk” CPT code 97039 to 97022 and reimburse under CPT code 97022.

While the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Lauderhill Medical Center LLC gave further clarification on CPT code reimbursement methodology, it is key for carriers to remain vigilant in the constantly changing landscape of Florida PIP litigation. If a carrier wishes to avoid litigation, then it seems the most practical reimbursement would be 80% of billed amount for CPT code 97039.

Alex is a member of the firm’s Fraud and Special Investigation Unit (SIU) Practice Group and is located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In this arena, he works in tandem with insurance carriers evaluating cases and taking Examinations Under Oath on SIU-related issues, resolving PIP disputes within the state of Florida. 


 

SIU Spotlight, Issue 1, Vol. 1, July 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Reversed Trial Judge's Orders Granting a Plaintiff's Section 40 Summary Judgement Motion

In Haskins v. Casey, et al., the plaintiff Dane Haskins worked for defendant Ekornes, Inc. (Ekornes) as a material handler. In June 2021, he filed a workers’ compensation claim petition for benefits due to a left shoulder injury in December 2020. He then resolved his workers’ compensation claim in November 2022 under an Order Approving Settlement. In January 2023, he filed a lawsuit against Ekornes and later amended to add additional claims and name other defendants, including the Ekornes president, chief financial officer, and director of human resources. In May 2025, a second amended complaint alleged that after he filed the workers compensation claim, Ekornes placed him on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), denied his request for a work accommodation, and ultimately terminated him from employment in December 2021. He pleaded several causes of action asserting violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) as well as fraudulent concealment and wrongful discharge. The plaintiff then moved for partial summary judgment, seeking an order enforcing Section 40 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) as well as summary judgment on his FMLA claims. The defendants opposed the motions and cross-moved for summary judgment on the FMLA claims. After arguments, the court entered an order in December 2025, denying the FMLA motion and cross motion and granting the plaintiff’s Section 40 motion. In the order, the court permitted the plaintiff to pursue compensatory damages at trial in connection with the bodily injury claim. The court also allowed the plaintiff to present evidence of any workers’ compensation benefits to support his claim. The court then denied the defendant's subsequent reconsideration motion in February 2026. The defendants that appealed the Section 40 aspect of the orders. In reviewing the appeal de novo, the Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff's argument that the work-related injury arose out of his discrimination claims under the LAD. The plaintiff argued that he should be able to pursue a personal injury claim as a part of his LAD claim, noting that the employer’s compensation carrier would be able to assert a lien against any recovery against his LAD claims. In distinguishing between the Richter vs. Oakland Board of Education, 246 N.J. 507 (2021) case, in which the Court found that any recovery would be subject to a Section 40 lien as the allegation was that the defendants failed to accommodate her pre-existing diabetic condition, which resulted in bodily injury. In this case, the Appellate Division indicated that there was no bodily injury caused by Ekornes’ failure to accommodate a pre-existing disability. Rather, the shoulder injury was a result of a workers compensation claim, for which he received appropriate benefits previously. The Appellate Division noted that if the plaintiff was successful in proving his LAD claims, he would be entitled to damages caused by the discriminatory discriminatory conduct such as lost wages and emotional distress damages and that there will be no Section 40 lien. In addition, the Appellate Division disagreed that the petitioner could present evidence about and seek damages for his shoulder injury at trial. Although the petitioner argued that a defendant who retaliated against an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim should not benefit from the exclusivity provision of the WCA, the Appellate Division noted that the Legislature did not include this type of scenario in the statue nor did any of the case law recognize this type of claim as a remedy. As such, the Appellate Division reversed the December 2025 order granting the the plaintiff’s Section 40 summary judgment motion as well as the February 2026 reconsideration motion order. The Appellate Division noted that they did not intend to limit the plaintiff in his pursuit of his other claims on under the LAD, FMLA, and workers’ compensation retaliation causes of action.

Thought Leadership

WCJ Improperly Refused to Conduct C&R Hearing and Erroneously Required Settlement of All Pending Petitions

In this case, the claimant sustained injuries in the course and scope of her employment as a registered nurse. The employer acknowledged the injury by a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).  Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) expanded the description of injury. The employer then filed a Termination Petition, alleging the claimant was fully recovered from the injuries. Providers filed Utilization Review (UR) Petitions, challenging UR determinations finding their chiropractic treatment to be not reasonable and necessary. A settlement of the claim was eventually reached, and the employer filed a Petition to Seek Approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) Agreement. The C&R outlined that the agreement fully resolved all future workers’ compensation claims except for the termination and UR Petitions. Briefs were filed and one day later, the WCJ issued an Interlocutory Order which stated if instructions were not followed regarding filing of a C&R, a settlement hearing date would not be given. The employer complied with the order, and filed the C&R. Subsequently, the WCJ notified the parties that the C&R must resolve all issues in the petitions, or would not be entertained. A settlement hearing was never held, and the WCJ then issued a decision, granting the Termination Petition and dismissing the UR Petitions. The WCJ also said that the Petition for Approval of a C&R was dismissed without prejudice, as the issues in the Termination and UR Petitions went to a decision. The claimant appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board granted the claimant’s appeal, finding that the WCJ violated the requirement of Section 449 that an expedited hearing be held when a Petition for Approval of a C&R is filed.  The Board further held that it was legally incorrect for the WCJ to insist that the C&R resolve all issues raised by the pending Petitions. The Board remanded the case to a new WCJ, and Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The court affirmed the Board and held that the WCJ erred, as a matter of law, by refusing to hold an expedited hearing within 30 days, once the Petition for Approval of a C&R was filed.  The court noted that the language of Section 449(b) is mandatory, and a settlement hearing is not discretionary or dependent on a party’s separate request for a stay, or whether the record has been closed. The court further rejected Employer’s argument that the case should not be remanded to a new WCJ for a new decision on the termination and and UR Petitions, as the Board passed no judgment on whether the C&R Agreement resolved the termination and UR Petitions, and left it for the WCJ to decide in connection with the Petition for Approval of a C&R.