11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 790b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Claim form — Countersignature by insured — Assigned claim — Insured was not required to countersign medical bills where insured has assigned PIP benefits to medical provider
GABLES TRAUMA CENTER, INC., a/a/o CARMEN FERNANDEZ, Appellant, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 02-499 AP. L.T. Case No. 01-011019 SP-25. June 22, 2004. On appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, The Honorable Wendell M. Graham presiding. Counsel: Mari Sampedro-Iglesia, Jose R. Iglesia, P.A., for Appellant. Mark A. Gatica, Office of General Counsel for United Automobile Insurance Company, for Appellee.
(Before SILVERMAN, TRAWICK, and LEYTE-VIDAL, JJ.)
(SILVERMAN, Judge.) Appellant, Carmen Fernandez (“Fernandez”), had a car insurance policy through Appellee, United Automobile Insurance Co. (“United”). On July 9, 2001, Fernandez was involved in a car accident which resulted in bodily injury requiring medical treatment which the Appellants, Gables Trauma Center (“Gables”) provided. Fernandez assigned the PIP benefits to Gables.
The medical bills were submitted to United via Health Care Administration Financing Act (“HCFA”) form 1500. United did not pay any of the medical bills. The insurance company maintained that per § 627.736(5)(a), Fla. Stat., Fernandez was required to countersign the medical bills. On April 30, 2002, United filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that as a matter of law, it was entitled to summary judgment for non-compliance with § 627.736(5)(a), Fla. Stat. The trial court agreed and granted United’s motion for summary judgment.
Regarding appeals of a summary judgment, the standard of review is de novo. See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000); Gasch v. Harris, 808 So. 2d 1260, 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
In Star Cas. v. U.S.A. Diagnostics, Inc., 855 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the appellate court declined to exercise its jurisdiction on the question of whether § 627.736(5), Fla. Stat., requires an insured’s signature on medical bills once the insured assigns his/her benefits to his/her medical provider. The appellate court declined to exercise its jurisdiction on the basis of the “plethora of cases” which “uniformly interpreted the countersignature requirement in section 627.736(5)(a) as a permitted, not mandatory, mechanism that does not require the insured’s signature on the reimbursement form where the insured has assigned benefits to the medical provider.” Id., 855 So. 2d at 252-53 (emphasis added).
Given the preceding, the trial court should not have granted United’s motion for summary judgment. Gables’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees is granted and United’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is denied.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent herewith. (TRAWICK and LEYTE-VIDAL, JJ., concur.)
* * *
