11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 152b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Provider lacked standing to bring action against insurer based on document which was entitled “Assignment of Benefits” but which was merely functional equivalent of a direction to pay
LIGHTHOUSE ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES, P.A. (a/a/o Kylee Treyz), Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 03-09553. November 18, 2003. William W. Herring, Judge. Counsel: Gary Gelch, Gelch, Taylor, and Hodgkin, P.A., for Plaintiff. Chad L. Christensen, Barnett & Barnard, P.A., Hollywood, for Defendant.
Affirmed. 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 893a
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
THIS CAUSE having come before this Court on October 17, 2003, on Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and the Court having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereby:
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the complaint of the Plaintiff, LIGHTHOUSE ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATES, P.A., is dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing. Specifically, the document attached to the complaint is not an assignment of benefits, but merely the functional equivalent of a direction to pay. The issue is one of law only, as the document is not ambiguous. Despite the title “Assignment Of Benefits” the document only assigns payment. The operative language of the paragraph states, “I hereby assign payment to the physicians. . .” Payment only is being assigned, not rights or benefits under the insurance policy. Assigning payment is the same thing as an authorization for direct payment. Orthopaedic Associates of South Broward, P.A. v. Progressive Insurance Co., 10Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 565a (Co. Ct., Broward, April 22, 2003); MDR Chiropractic v. Progressive Express Insurance Co., 9 Fla. L.Weekly Supp. 328 (Co. Ct., Palm Beach, March 14, 2002); Physicians Injury Center v. Progressive Express Insurance Co., 9Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 169a (Cir. Ct. App. Divn., 13th Cir., Hillsborough Co., January 17, 2002); and Wallace v. Omni Insurance Co., 5Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 284b (Cir. Ct., App. Divn., 6th Cir., Pinellas Co., February 2, 1998). See also 381 So.2d 294.
Further, the plaintiff cannot rely on the “Lifetime Authorization” section of the document for an assignment because it is only an assignment regarding Medicare or Medicaid benefits.
* * *
