10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 911a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Collection agency — Where medical provider received assignment of benefits from insured, and in turn, assigned benefits to collection agency, collection agency may pursue claim against insurer for breach of contract but does not have standing to maintain PIP action — Since debt collection agency is not medical provider, it does not come within terms of PIP statute — Summary judgment granted in favor of insurer — Question certified
RECOVERY SPECIALISTS, INC. (as assignee for Jacksonville Emergency Consultants — John Haley), Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County. Case No. 16-2003-CC-0001650. Division C. July 7, 2003. Brent D. Shore, Judge. Counsel: Kevin J. Loftus, Harrell & Johnson, P.A. Jacksonville, for Plaintiff. James C. Rinaman, III, McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope & Weaver, P.A., Jacksonville, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’SMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS MATTER came before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court, after considering the Motion, supporting and responsive memoranda, argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds and rules as follows:
The plaintiff, Recovery Specialists, Inc., brought this cause of action as the assignee of Jacksonville Emergency Consultants, which purportedly holds an assignment of benefits from Defendant’s insured, John Haley. Recovery Specialists, Inc. is seeking payment of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits relating to medical services provided to Mr. Haley on August 10, 2000, by Jacksonville Emergency Consultants.
In its Motion, Defendant argues that the Plaintiff is not an entity which can avail itself of the rights and remedies set forth in the Florida PIP Statute, § 627.736, based on the undisputed fact that Plaintiff is a collection agency rather than a provider of health care services. Defendant argues that a collection agency is not a provider of medical services and has no rights under the PIP statute.
In support of its position, Defendant cites as persuasive authority, the Hillsborough County Court case, Healthcare Financial Service v. State Farm Automobile Ins. Co., 8 FLW [Fla. L. Weekly] Supp. 44a (Fla. 13th Judicial Circuit, October 18, 2000). In that case, the Court did not permit a collection agency, as an assignee of an insured individual, to bring a cause of action under the PIP statute. The Court reasoned that because the plaintiff was not a medical services provider, it did not come within the statute’s terms. Defendant also cites Federated National Ins. Co. v. Physicians Charter Services, 788 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2001), in which the Third District Court of Appeal held that there is no provision in Florida’s PIP statutes for the payment of policy benefits to a third party who has not performed medical services.
Plaintiff attempts to distinguish Federated National Ins. Co., supra, arguing that in that case, an MRI brokering service sought payment for medical services, where it provided referral and billing services, but not medical services under the PIP statute. The Plaintiff argues it is differently situated, in that it obtained a valid assignment from Jacksonville Emergency Consultants, and that it is entitled to pursue this action under that assignment. Plaintiff cites, as persuasive authority, the case of Medifin, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 8FLW [Fla. L. Weekly] Supp. 316a (Fla. 13th Judicial Circuit, November 22, 2000). In that case, the Court ruled that a bill collection agency holding an assignment of benefits from a medical provider could maintain an action against an insurance carrier in a PIP suit.
This Court disagrees. Although Jacksonville Emergency Consultants may freely assign its rights, therefore entitling Plaintiff to pursue a claim for breach of contract, Plaintiff, as a collection agency, cannot pursue an action under this statute. According to § 627.736(5), Defendant is required to pay only a “physician, hospital, clinic, or other person or institution lawfully rendering treatment to an injured person for bodily injury.” Since Plaintiff is not a medical services provider, it does not come within the statute’s terms.
The statute makes it clear that an insurer must only make payment to the insured or such person or institution lawfully rendering medical treatment. Where a Statute is clear and unambiguous there is no need for statutory interpretation and the Court should follow its plain meaning. Bolden v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 689 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
As a bill collection agency, Plaintiff is similarly situated to the MRI broker in the Federated National Ins. Co., case, supra. Neither entity provided medical services, both provide billing services, and both entities would add unnecessary costs to the statutory scheme, if either were permitted to pursue payment of bills for medical services under an assignment of benefits from an insured or a medical provider. Therefore, this Court finds the case law and argument presented by Defendant to be persuasive, and grants Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
CERTIFICATION TO THE FIRST DISTRICTCOURT OF APPEAL
The Court notes that there is no controlling precedent, as none has addressed the legal issues presented here and passed on by this Court. Given that this issue could affect the conduct of medical providers and collection agencies throughout the State, this Court finds and concludes that the matters presented and ruled upon are of great public importance. Accordingly, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.160, this Court hereby certifies that this case involves issues of great importance including, but not limited to, the following:
Can a third party collection agency, which has not provided any medical treatment or services, bring suit against an insurance carrier as an assignee of a medical provider, for payment of medical services under F.S. § 627.730-627.7405.
FINAL JUDGMENT FORPROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY
Pursuant to the foregoing, FINAL JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favor of Defendant, Progressive Express Insurance Company and against Plaintiff, Recovery Specialists of Jax, Inc. (as assignee of Jacksonville Emergency Consultants). Plaintiff, Recovery Specialists of Jax, Inc., shall take nothing by this action, and Defendant, Progressive Express Insurance Company, shall go hence without day. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this court reserves jurisdiction in order to tax fees and costs against Recovery Specialists of Jax, Inc., if authorized by law, and when all appeals are exhausted.
* * *
