To be fair, though, it's a correct statement but incomplete. You try what works, from least invasive to most invasive. So typically one would start w PT, then if that's unsuccessful, injections would be the next route. Thereafter, if surgery is indicated through diagnostic testing, then surgery. This is the common conservative approach to pain management.

For whatever reason, I think it works sort of as follows:

CSLG's hand-picked docs don't bill insurance but instead take a lien on treatment --and of course those liens are super flexible, effectively depending on ultimate case results. They also seem to move thru the model above pretty quickly, and also seem quick to find correlating anatomical dysfunction that justifies the move to surgical intervention. (We all have anatomical back dysfunctions--they just happen over time and as we age. But mostly they are asymptomatic, thankfully.)

It's an interesting model, but it only works in places like California where apparently judges won't allow defense counsel to take the lid off some of the nuances of treatment and physician compensation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4632373&forum_id=2#40979664)