Michigan Employee's Massage Therapy Was Not Compensable

A Michigan appellate court vacated a ruling by the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission (MCAC) requiring an employer to reimburse an injured employee for massage therapy services where the services were not (a) prescribed by health care professionals specified in the Michigan Act and (b) performed by a licensed physical therapist or physical therapist assistant under the supervision of a licensed physical therapist [Belcher v. Ford Motor Co., 2020 Mich. App. LEXIS 6210 (Sept. 17, 2020); see MCL 418.315(1)]. The court stressed that the Michigan Act did not prohibit reimbursement for massages, as such. Here, however, the employee had not established either of the two prerequisites for reimbursement.

Background

In 2006, plaintiff sustained injuries to his back, right leg, and and in the form of headaches in a work-related incident. while working for defendant. Beginning in 2008, plaintiff received worker’s compensation benefits from the employer. Although he was not referred to massage therapy by his doctor, plaintiff chose to begin receiving massage therapy in October 2014, after his physical therapy was terminated. Plaintiff typically went to a massage parlor for massages from a licensed massage therapist twice a week.

Plaintiff’s doctor reported that plaintiff’s condition appeared to improve after he received massage therapy, but that the improvement would last only a few days after each massage. A doctor retained by the employer concluded, however, that massage therapy would not change plaintiff’s overall diagnosis or functional abilities.

Because the employer refused to pay for plaintiff’s massage therapy, plaintiff initiated an action seeking reimbursement for his massage therapy expenses. A magistrate concluded that plaintiff’s massage therapy was reasonable and necessary, and ordered the employer to pay for plaintiff’s massage therapy. The MCAC affirmed the magistrate’s order, concluding that plaintiff’s massage therapy was reasonable and necessary. The employer appealed.

Practice of Physical Therapy Includes Massage Therapy

The appellate court noted that the employer’s initial argument–that “physical therapy services” as used in MCL 418.315(1), included massage therapy. The court indicated the Michigan Act did not expressly define “physical therapy service.” Rather, the Public Health Code regulated the practice of physical therapy [MCL 333.17820]. As indicated in MCL 333.17801(1)(a) , a “physical therapist” is “an individual licensed under this article to engage in the practice of physical therapy.” A “physical therapist assistant” is “an individual with a health profession subfield license under this part who assists a physical therapist in physical therapy intervention.” Referring to the language of MCL 333.17801, the court held the “practice of physical therapy” specifically included “massage.”

Plaintiff’s Counter-Argument

The court noted that plaintiff had conceded his massage therapy was performed by a massage therapist, not a physical therapist or physical therapist assistant. He also conceded that he did not receive a prescription for massage therapy. Rather, plaintiff argued that the MCAC correctly determined that MCL 418.315(1) did not apply to the case because the massage therapy received by plaintiff was performed by a licensed massage therapist; massage therapy is authorized under the Public Health Code; and massage therapy is not prohibited under part 178 of the Public Health Code (MCL 333.17801, et seq.).

Plaintiff Missed the Essential Issue

The court stressed, however, that the issue in the case was not whether plaintiff’s massage therapists were permitted to massage him without violating the Public Health Code. Rather, the issue was whether plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement under the Michigan Act for his massages. The fact that plaintiff’s massage therapist could massage him without violating the Public Health Code had no bearing on whether a massage was a “physical therapy service” and, consequently, whether defendant was required by the Michigan Act to pay for plaintiff’s massages. The court reasoned that in as much as massage therapy was a “physical therapy service,” and as plaintiff’s massages were admittedly not performed by licensed physical therapists, the employer was not required to reimburse for them.

Michigan’s Act Did Not Prohibit Reimbursement for Massages

The court also stressed that the Michigan Act did not prohibit reimbursement for massages. Rather, under MCL 418.315(1), the Act only required reimbursement for massages if they were (1) prescribed by certain health care professionals and (2) performed by a licensed physical therapist or physical therapist assistant under the supervision of a licensed physical therapist. Neither requirement was met here. Accordingly, plaintiff was not entitled to worker’s compensation reimbursement from defendant for his massages.