10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 731a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Medical bills — Medical provider’s motion for summary judgment is denied where defense of whether medical bill was necessary and related to accident in question remains
SOUTH FLORIDA OPEN MRI, a/a/o Argel Pena, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County. Case No. 02-4219 SP 26 (03). July 21, 2003. Cristina Pereyra-Shuminer, Judge. Counsel: Stuart L. Koenigsberg. James T. Sparkman, James T. Sparkman & Associates, Fort Lauderdale.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on June 24, 2003, pursuant to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court having heard argument and being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. The Court finds that the date of service was January 3, 2002. An orthopedic IME was performed on January 9, 2002. The IME report discussed subsequent medical care only. The defendant denied payment of the bill on January 21, 2002. The defendant received the bill in question on January 16, 2002. Thereafter, the defendant obtained an orthopedic peer review of the bill in question which denied the bill in question.
2. By stipulation, the only remaining defense is whether or not the medical bill was reasonable and necessary and related to the accident in question.
3. By stipulation, the amount of the bill as per the HCFA form is reasonable, and shall not be an issue at trial, i.e. $952.78 representing 80% of the allowable charge for said care pursuant to the 2001 Medi-Care Part B schedule.
4. Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
* * *
