10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 907a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Revocation — Where medical provider had standing pursuant to assignment at time suit was filed, subsequent revocation of assignment by insured would only be effective as to dates of service not already encompassed in provider’s suit — If suit insured filed after revocation does not encompass any dates of service after date medical provider’s suit was filed, insured’s suit should be dismissed
SEMEGON CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CENTER, P.A., (Marjorie Spangler), Plaintiff(s), vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s). County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County. Case No. 2001-012804 CC (DIV A). Bar No. 331112. September 25, 2003. Emmet F. Ferguson, III, Judge. Counsel: Gary Marks, Marks & Fleischer, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale. Edward H. Merrigan, Jr.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard before me on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court having heard the argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, states as follows: The undisputed facts reveal that:
1. Semegon Chiropractic Health Center filed suit against Progressive Express on October 15th, 2001 for reductions Progressive took based upon a Beech Street PPO contract and other charges based upon a CPT coding issue.
2. The treatment allegedly stemmed from an automobile accident dated May 30, 1999.
3. Semegon Chiropractic Health Center was assigned benefits by the patient prior to the instant lawsuit being filed.
4. Dr. Semegon billed Progressive directly and was paid directly by Progressive.
5. On or about August 2, 2002 (approximately 10 months after suit was filed), the patient’s attorney faxed over a letter requesting Dr. Semegon sign a mutual revocation of assignment which was signed and returned to the patient’s attorney who then filed his own lawsuit on behalf of the patient.
6. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment seeks a final judgment in its favor based upon the subsequent revocation of assignment divesting Dr. Semegon of standing retroactive to the time suit was filed.LAW
It is well settled that standing is determined at the time suit is filed. American Diagnostic Institute vs. Allstate Indemnity Company, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 406a (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. March 21, 2001); Fortune vs. Lugo, 7 FLW [Fla. L. Weekly] Supp. 239 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. App. April 4, 2000. Here Dr. Semegon had standing at the time suit was filed. 10 months after suit the purported revocation “nunc pro tunc” was signed. The question is the effectiveness of the subsequent revocation of assignment. It seems clear that once Dr. Semegon filed suit the assignment, was irrevocable at the very latest, up to the point he filed suit. State Farm Insurance Company vs. Gonnella, 677 So.2d 1355 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1996) In other words any subsequent revocation would only be effective as to dates of service that were not already encompassed in the present litigation. Georges vs. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 5 FLW [Fla. L. Weekly] Supp. 484a (Pinellas County Court February 24th, 1998). The court expresses concern over the consideration supporting the subsequent revocation. Normally once an assignment is made in exchange for receiving medical treatment, it is irrevocable. Rittman vs. Allstate, 727 So. 2d 391, 394 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1999). Here Dr. Semegon retained counsel and prosecuted the collection of the benefits he was owed. The court can not envision any consideration to support the subsequent revocation of the assignment for those benefits at issue in the lawsuit. If the subsequent lawsuit filed by Ms. Spangler’s attorney does not encompass any dates of service after October 15th, 2001 (the date this suit was filed) that lawsuit should be dismissed.
It is thereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants Motion For Final Summary Judgment be and the same is hereby
DENIED.
* * *
