Court Opinion

ID: 9701466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:20:16.204487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:05:04.138153
License: Public Domain

CAPPY, Justice,
dissenting.
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.l). 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. § 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.
Justice NIGRO joins this dissenting statement.