10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 979a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Medical bills — Timeliness — Where sixtieth day after treatment was a Saturday, sixty-day period for submission of bill to insurer was extended by rule 1.090, and medical provider’s bill postmarked on following Monday was timely submitted
OCEAN HARBOR CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. WELLNESS ASSOCIATES OF FLORIDA, INC., a/a/o SIXTO DERZ, Appellee. Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit (Appellate-Civil) in and for Palm Beach County. Case No. 502002AP008357XXCCAY. October 27, 2003. Appeal from the County Court In and For Palm Beach County, Judge Krista Marx. Case No. AP 02-8357 AY. PCA Affirmed. Counsel: Mara Shlackman, Hollywood, for Appellant. Gary J. Drucker, Coral Springs, for Appellee.
(McCarthy, J.) This is an appeal from a Summary Judgment granted by County Court Judge Krista Marx. We affirm.
FACTS
The facts upon which the County Court granted the Summary Judgment were stipulated:
1. Wellness Associates performed an MRI on Sixto Derz on June 5th, 2001 and charged $1650.00.
2. Wellness timely submitted to the insurance company its notice of intent to treat the insured.
3. Wellness had sixty (60) days under the applicable PIP statute to furnish its bill to carrier (Ocean Harbor Casualty Insurance Company).
4. The sixtieth (60th) day after the MRI was Saturday, August 4th, 2001.
5. The postmark on the billing envelope sent to the carrier was Monday, August 6th, 2001.
6. Wellness waived any timeliness argument on Ocean Harbor’s Motion for Summary Judgment served two days before the hearing.
7. The $1650.00 was never paid by the carrier.
ISSUE
Was the Appellee’s bill timely furnished to Appellant within the statutory sixty (60) day period?
COUNTY COURT RULING
The county court judge found that the medical bill was timely served because Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.090 (and Black and Decker Manufacturing Company v. Herrero, 281 So.2d 18 (Fla. 1973)) extended the sixtieth (60th) day (Saturday) until the following Monday states that:
“In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by. . . any applicable statute, the last day of the period so computed shall be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, in which event, the period shall run until the end of the next day, which is neither a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.”
Because the sixtieth (60th) day was on Saturday, August 4th, 2001 and the postmark was on Monday, August 6th, 2001, the county court found that submission was timely and that Wellness was entitled to a summary judgment for the amount of its unpaid bill plus interest.
The court also reserved jurisdiction for tax and attorney’s fees.
PERTINENT STATUTES AND RULES
The carrier, Ocean Harbor relies on the precise language of the PIP statute.
Section 627.736(5)(b) provides in pertinent and part. . . the statement may include charges for treatment or services rendered up to, but not more than, sixty (60) days before the postmarked date of the statement.”
The County Court and Wellness rely on Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.090:
In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by. . . any applicable statute, the last day of the period so computed shall be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday in which event, the period shall run until the end of the next day, which is neither a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.”
There are no cases interpreting Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.090 as it applies to F.S. 627.736.DISCUSSION
Black and Decker Manufacturing Company v. Herrero, 281 So.2d 18 (Fla. 1973) (which upholds the Third District Court of Appeals in Herrero v. Black and Decker Manufacturing Company, 275 So.2d 54 (Fla. PP 3rd DCA 1973)) and Penn v. Florida Finance and Accounting Service Center Authority, 623 So.2d 459 (Fla. 1993) hold that where both statute of limitation time computations and non-statute of limitation time computations were extended by Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.090.
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
The Plaintiff, Wellness Associates of Florida has filed an Amended Motion for Attorney’s Fees. Under the PIP statute (727.736(8) and 727.428.) Under those statutes, as well as, Section 57.041 Wellness is entitled to its attorney’s fees and costs.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the County Court judge is affirmed.
The Appellee’s Motion For Entitlement To Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED.
The case is remanded to the County Court to determine the amount of attorney’s fees and costs. (Miller, J. and Berger, J. concur)
* * *
