10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 546c
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Summary judgment granted in favor of insurer on claim of medical provider to whom insured assigned benefits for unpaid portion of medical bill where prior to filing of suit insurer exhausted benefits with payment to medical provider other than plaintiff
GENESIS DIAGNOSTICS, (as assignee of Guerline Fontilus), Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 2002-21761-SC. Division J. April 17, 2003. Gaston J. Fernandez, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick. Keith E. Cunningham, Gonzalez & Capito, Clearwater.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come on for hearing on March 6, 2003, on Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment in the above-styled matter, and the Court having reviewed the file, heard arguments of counsel, reviewed the case law and being otherwise fully advised in the premises and the law, the Court makes the following findings:
1. The Plaintiff medical provider filed the subject lawsuit to recover payment of PIP benefits for its treatment of injuries sustained by Defendant’s insured, Guerline Fontilus, resulting from a January 20, 2001 motor vehicle accident.
2. The only substantive provider benefit issue in this case was the Defendant’s reduction of the amount that Plaintiff charged for its May 4, 2001 treatment of insured, Guerline Fontilus, and the Defendant’s payment to the Plaintiff at the reduced amount.
3. Defendant exhausted the $10,000 in PIP benefits available to its insured, with a June 29, 2001 payment to a medical service provider other than the Plaintiff herein.
4. Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on September 25, 2002, after the Defendant exhausted the PIP benefits of the subject insurance policy.
5. Pursuant to the holding in MTM Diagnostic, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. [(13th Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, No. 00-238-X, Fla. 13th Cir. Ct., November 20, 2000)] [9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 581e], and the cases cited therein, Defendant is entitled to Summary Judgment as a matter of law. It is therefore,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall take nothing by this action and go further hence without day.
* * *
