Summary
In Kleinberg v. SEPTA, 810 A.2d 635 (Pa. 2002), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court's ruling that held that the PTPA "requires those who administer physical therapy services to be licensed, [and] we cannot concur with the Trial Court's conclusion that if such services are delegated to persons, whether licensed under the PTPA or not, who are supervised by the delegating physician, an insurer is responsible for paying for such services."
Summary of this case from Champlost Family Medical Practice v. State Farm Ins.Opinion
[J-162-2002].
Argued: October 22, 2002.
Decided: November 13, 2002.
No. 49 EAP 2001, Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered on November 29, 2000 (reargument denied February 7, 2001) at No. 565 C.D. 2000 reversing the Order entered on January 19, 2000 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No. 1310 March Term 1998 and remanding the case 765 A.2d 405 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2000).
Steven Alan Schwartz, Ramona Mariani, Glenside, Morris M. Shuster, for Harvey S. Kleinberg.
Jennifer M. McHugh, Michael Alan Hamilton, Eugene S. Boggia, Nicholas J. Staffieri, Philadelphia, Mark Charles Schultz, for Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority.
Richard B. Tucker, Pittsburgh, for PA Physical Therapy Assoc.
James C. Haggerty, Philadelphia, for Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania.
John Bennett, Pro hac vic, for American Rehabilitation and Physical Therapy, Inc.
Before: ZAPPALA, C.J., and CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, SAYLOR, and EAKIN, JJ.
ORDER
The Order of the Commonwealth Court is affirmed.
Madame Justice NEWMAN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice CAPPY files a dissenting statement in which Mr. Justice Nigro joins.
I respectfully dissent. The Commonwealth Court ignored those portions of the Physical Therapy Practice Act (PTPA) that provide that the PTPA will not limit a physician's ability to practice medicine. See 63 P. S. § 1304(a), (b.1). These provisions must be read in pari materia with the Medical Practice Act and the Osteopathic Medical Practice Act, which delineate the scope of the physician's practice of medicine. In my view, the practice of medicine encompasses the services at issue here, and is not limited by the PTPA. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1712, amended by 2002, Oct. 4, P.L. 845, No. 123, § 3 (amending the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law to require insurers to cover "rehabilitative medicine. . .services", including "physical therapy"). Accordingly, I cannot join the decision to affirm per curiam the order of the Commonwealth Court.
Mr. Justice Nigro joins this dissenting statement.