ICD code S82.134E – Nondisplaced medial condyle tibia fracture

Key takeaways

S82.134E is the billable ICD-10-CM code for a nondisplaced medial condyle fracture of the right tibia in follow-up care.

The 7th character E means subsequent encounter, open fracture type I or II, and routine healing.

All three of those facts must be documented before the code can be assigned.

Selecting D instead of E on an open fracture is the most frequent error on these claims.

A missing Gustilo grade in the operative note blocks the E character at every later visit.

ICD-10 Code S82.134E: Full description and billable status

ICD-10 Code S82.134E is a billable, encounter-specific code in the ICD-10-CM system. It is valid for use in HIPAA-covered transactions per CMS guidance. The full official descriptor is: Nondisplaced fracture of medial condyle of right tibia, subsequent encounter for open fracture type I or II with routine healing.

Every word in that descriptor carries a specific coding meaning. The table below breaks each component down into plain clinical language.

S82.134E became effective in its current form with ICD-10-CM FY2025/FY2026 updates from the CDC/NCHS. It is valid for claims submitted on and after October 1, 2024.

Understanding the 7th character E in ICD-10 fracture codes

The 7th character in S82.134x codes encodes three pieces of information simultaneously. It records the encounter type, the fracture opening status, and the healing status. Getting this character wrong is the single most common reason S82.134 claims are denied or audited.

The table below lists every valid 7th character for the S82.134 code family. The open-fracture characters follow the Gustilo-Anderson grade documented at the time of the original acute injury.

Character E is the only option in this family that satisfies all three conditions at once. The encounter is a follow-up, the wound was graded I or II at injury, and healing is running normally. The grid below puts every combination on one screen.

The AAPC Codify ICD-10-CM lookup can confirm which 7th character options are valid for a given code.

Open fracture classification and the Gustilo system

The Gustilo-Anderson classification is the grading system ICD-10-CM uses to map open fracture severity to 7th characters. A physician or surgeon must document the Gustilo grade in the operative or clinical note at the time of acute injury. Without that note, coders cannot accurately assign the E character on subsequent visits.

Gustilo grading is a physician determination. Coders should never assign an open fracture grade from the wound description alone. When the operative note documents only “open fracture” without specifying the type, query the treating physician. Defaulting to type I without documentation is an audit risk.

S82.134E code hierarchy and parent codes

S82.134E sits within the ICD-10-CM chapter covering injury, poisoning, and certain other consequences of external causes (S00-T88). Reading the full parent hierarchy is what keeps Includes and Excludes notes applied at the right level.

• S00-T88: Injury, poisoning, and certain other consequences of external causes
• S80-S89: Injuries to the knee and lower leg
• S82: Fracture of lower leg, including ankle, which covers fractures of the tibia and fibula
• S82.1: Fracture of upper end of tibia (proximal tibia)
• S82.13: Fracture of medial condyle of tibia
• S82.134: Nondisplaced fracture of medial condyle of right tibia
• S82.134E: Subsequent encounter, open type I or II, routine healing

The sixth character of S82.134 carries displacement and laterality together, and a 4 means nondisplaced on the right. Its siblings are S82.135 for the left tibia and S82.136 where the side is not recorded. All three share the same 7th character options. ICD-10-CM guidelines direct coders to select the most specific code the documentation supports.

Initial, subsequent, or sequela: Which encounter type applies

The encounter type character is the most clinically nuanced element of S82.134 coding. “Subsequent encounter” does not mean the patient’s second visit. It means the patient is receiving care after the initial definitive treatment for the fracture has been completed.

One rule from the ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines, Section I.C.19 catches most teams out. A patient may need several initial-encounter visits before definitive treatment is finished. A patient seen in the ED for emergent debridement, then returning next day for ORIF, gets the initial encounter character on both visits. The subsequent encounter character begins with the next visit after that.

Related ICD-10 codes for medial condyle tibia fractures

S82.134E belongs to a family of codes sharing the same anatomical site. Choosing among them means confirming three data points: laterality, displacement status, and whether an open wound was present at the original injury. The table below maps the S82.13x variants you meet most often during claim review.

Documentation requirements for accurate S82.134E coding

Four data elements must be explicitly documented to support S82.134E on a claim. Missing any one of them shifts the code to a less specific alternative, which can trigger a records request or a denial on specificity grounds. The documentation standards set out in medical billing compliance show how a thin note becomes claim risk.

• Fracture displacement status: The clinical note must state “nondisplaced.” If documentation reads “minimally displaced,” “angulated,” or “comminuted,” the displaced code family (S82.131-S82.133) applies instead.
• Fracture site specificity: The note must identify the medial condyle of the tibia. References to “proximal tibia fracture,” “tibial plateau,” or “knee fracture” alone are not enough for S82.13x coding.
• Open wound grade: The Gustilo-Anderson grade must be documented at the acute injury visit, in the operative note or the emergency department note. Grade I or II supports character E. Grade IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC supports characters C, F, J, or N, depending on encounter type and healing.
• Encounter type: The record must make clear whether the current visit is active treatment or follow-up. Clinical context usually settles it, but an ambiguous visit should be clarified with the provider before the claim goes out.

When any of the four elements is missing, query the physician before coding rather than defaulting to an unspecified variant. ICD-10-CM coding guidelines do not permit coders to infer clinical information the documentation never states.

Includes, Excludes, and applicable-to notes

The S82 category carries Excludes2 notes that define which conditions may be coded alongside S82.134E on the same claim.

• Excludes2 – Traumatic amputation of lower leg (S88.-): Amputation and fracture codes may be assigned together when both are documented for the same encounter. An Excludes2 note means the two are not mutually exclusive.
• Excludes2 – Fracture of foot (S92.-): Foot fractures are coded separately from lower-leg fractures. Assign both where both are documented, and never use S82.134x to capture a foot injury.
• Excludes2 – Periprosthetic fracture around internal prosthetic implant of knee joint (M97.1): M97.1 takes priority as the principal code. It applies when the fracture occurs around a total knee replacement.
• Note – Physeal fractures of upper end of tibia: These are coded with S89.0- codes, not S82.13x. A growth plate injury at the proximal tibia in a skeletally immature patient uses a different code family.

No Excludes1 notes apply directly to S82.134E itself. The Excludes1 restrictions on the broader S82 category concern ankle fractures (S82.84-). They apply when an ankle fracture and a tibial condyle fracture occur at the same encounter. The full WHO ICD-10 classification hierarchy lists the notes attached at each code level.

Common coding errors that trigger denials

Most claim denials and audit flags for this code cluster around four predictable errors. Each one surfaces on the remittance advice as one of the common denial codes, so the pattern is visible well before an appeal is written.

• Using D instead of E for open fractures: Character D applies only to closed fractures with routine healing. If the original injury was open, character E (type I/II) or F (type IIIA/B/C) is correct for a subsequent encounter with no healing complication.
• Coding “nondisplaced” without documentation: “Stable fracture,” “hairline fracture,” or “stress fracture” does not confirm nondisplacement in ICD-10-CM terms. The note must say nondisplaced, or the displaced code family applies.
• Using S82.134E on the initial encounter: The E character is a subsequent encounter code. Applying it at the ED visit or the surgical case produces a code that contradicts the service date, which payers find through claims history.
• Getting the side wrong: S82.134E already states the right tibia. When the operative report names the left side, S82.135x applies, and S82.136x is reserved for records that genuinely never state a side.

Practices submitting orthopedic claims electronically benefit from structured coding workflows. Practice management software like Pabau screens ICD-10-CM codes against payer edits before a claim is transmitted. Mismatched code combinations get flagged at the point of care. Tracking outcomes over time through cleaner claims management shows billing teams where the same error repeats across providers and encounter types.

How Pabau supports accurate coding on orthopedic claims

Most orthopedic billing teams verify the 7th character by hand. A coder opens the operative note to find the Gustilo grade. A second lookup in the follow-up note confirms the encounter type. The code is then typed into a claim form. No step in that chain catches a wrong character before submission.

Pabau keeps the coding decision next to the record it came from. Diagnosis codes attach to the encounter inside the patient record. A follow-up visit therefore carries the injury it follows and the grade documented at the time. Claims then route through Claim.MD, the clearinghouse Pabau submits through, which screens ICD-10-CM codes against payer edits first.

The outcome is fewer corrected claims and shorter appeal queues. A wrong 7th character surfaces while the encounter is still open, rather than 30 days later on a remittance advice.

Streamline orthopedic billing and coding workflows

Pabau’s claims management supports accurate ICD-10-CM coding, cleaner claim submission, and faster reimbursement for orthopedic and trauma practices.

Book a demo

Conclusion

S82.134E rewards practices that write the Gustilo grade down once, at the moment of injury, and keep it where the follow-up coder can find it. Every later decision on this code rests on that one line in the operative note.

The trade-off worth remembering is specificity against speed. Reaching for D because the chart never says “open” is faster, and it is the error payers spot most reliably in claims history. A physician query costs a day; a corrected claim costs a cycle.

Set the standard at the injury visit, and the subsequent encounters code themselves. Book a demo to see how Pabau keeps each coding decision attached to the orthopedic record it came from.

Continue your research

Need guidance on denial management for orthopedic claims? Denial management in healthcare billing covers how to identify, track, and appeal common payer denials across ICD-10-CM coded claims.

Looking for a reference on ICD-10-CM coding compliance? Medical billing compliance outlines documentation standards and coding accuracy requirements for US healthcare practices.

Want to understand how clearinghouses process fracture claims? 837 file submission explains how electronic claim files carry ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes from practice management systems to payers.

Frequently asked questions