.

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 If the CPT code is no longer valid but the service remains reimbursable under Medicare, then the insurance carrier must make a reasonable analysis determination.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

Legal Update for Special Education Law: Recent Positive Outcomes From the Group

Hearing Officer Confirms District Acted Appropriately Under IDEA and Section 504 William J. McPartland (Scranton) obtained a finding in favor of our client, a school district, on all issues following a due process hearing. The parent had filed a due process complaint alleging that the school district had breached its child find duty under the IDEA and Section 504, that the school district had discriminated against the student on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504, and that the school district had denied a free and appropriate public education to the student both by developing inadequate IEPs and via an actionable procedural violation.  Specifically, the student had received a Section 504 evaluation in October 2023, after a number of behavioral infractions culminating in a fight in September 2023, was identified as having anxiety and a sleep disorder, and received appropriate Section 504 accommodations. The student had never previously demonstrated signs of a learning disability, and the parent denied the school district permission to evaluate the student for special education needs in November 2023, and January 2024. The parent granted the district permission to evaluate the student in October 2024, after a private psychologist diagnosed the student with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, possible Oppositional Defiance Disorder, a learning disorder, and anxiety. The school district issued a special education evaluation report in December 2024, finding that the student had an emotional disturbance and other health impairment, and an IEP providing an itinerant level of emotional support, as well as instruction in academics and social skills, was issued in January 2025, and amended in February, March, and April 2025. The student withdrew from the school district in April 2025, to attend a cyber charter school. The hearing officer determined that the school district had not violated its child find duty to the student in violation of either the IDEA or Section 504 where the district developed a Section 504 plan for the student within a month and a half of the parent’s first request for a Section 504 evaluation and where the parent repeatedly denied consent to conduct an IDEA evaluation of the student. The hearing officer noted that the student’s sporadic record of behavioral infractions prior to September 2023, did not suggest that the student had a disability prior to the parent’s initial request for an evaluation. The hearing officer further determined that no evidence had been produced to suggest that the student was discriminated against on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504. Additionally, the hearing officer determined that the IEP offered to the student was substantively adequate and that, to the extent the social and emotional programming offered by the school district was not received by the student, this resulted from the parent’s refusal to accept the same. The hearing officer finally determined that the school district did not commit an actionable procedural violation by delaying development of an IEP for the student where the parent repeatedly denied consent to evaluate the student. Court Dismisses Three of Four Claims Against School District Christopher J. Conrad and Daniel P. McGannon (Harrisburg) achieved a significant early victory on behalf of a school district client in. The team successfully obtained dismissal of three of the four claims asserted in the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The former district superintendent brought multiple claims arising out of his alleged “forced resignation,” including age discrimination under the ADEA, a Section 1983 Equal Protection claim, a Pennsylvania Whistleblower claim, and breach of contract. On behalf of the district, the defense team moved to dismiss the complaint in part, arguing: The plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a prima facie case of age discrimination. The equal protection claim was barred because the ADEA provides the exclusive federal remedy for age-based employment claims. The breach of contract claim could not stand because the underlying employment agreement had expired prior to the alleged breach. The court agreed, dismissing the ADEA, equal protection, and breach of contract claims in their entirety. As a result, only a single claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law remains pending. This outcome substantially narrows the scope of the litigation and positions the client for a more efficient defense moving forward.

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict.