11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 624c
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Validity — Where document uses word “assignment” three times, and it can be inferred from direction to pay medical benefits directly to provider that insured and provider intended that insured knowingly and intentionally sign an agreement conferring on provider insured’s right to receive payment of benefits owed to insured under policy, document is valid assignment and trial court erred in dismissing provider’s PIP suit for lack of standing
ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY ASSOCIATES, INC., (a/a/o ABRAHAM WEINER), Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case No. 03-16678 CACE (04). April 17, 2004. Appeal from the County Court in and for Broward County, William W. Herring, County Court Judge. Counsel: Robert C. Buschel, Buschel, Carter, Schwartzreich & Yates, Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellant. Douglas H. Stein, Anania, Bandklayder, Blackwell, Baumgarten, Torricella & Stein, Miami, for Appellee.
(ROBERT B. CARNEY, Circuit Judge.) This is an appeal from the trial court’s Final Order dismissing Appellant’s Complaint. Appellant filed its Complaint, in which it alleges that Appellee failed to properly pay amounts due, pursuant to a PIP insurance policy for health care services that it rendered to Abraham Weiner, an insured of Appellee who had been injured a motor vehicle accident. Appellant is a health care provider who alleges to have treated Mr. Weiner, and to have obtained an assignment from Mr. Weiner. Appellant attached to its Complaint a document titled “Patient Consent and Authorization.” That document includes a clause titled “Assignment of Benefits” which unambiguously states as follows:
I hereby assign payment directly to the physician(s) accepting this assignment of medical benefits applicable and otherwise payable to me, but not to exceed the physician’s regular charges. I understand that I am financially responsible for the charges not covered by this assignment or for any and all charges which the insurance carrier declines to pay.
Appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss Appellant’s Complaint wherein it argued that the Complaint should be dismissed because the document is, in fact, not an assignment and, therefore, Appellant does not have standing to assert the claim. On September 10, 2003, the trial court granted Appellee’s Motion, and entered its Final Order of Dismissal. In its Order, the trial court expressly relied on Advanced Orthopedic & Sports Medicine v. Metropolitan General Insurance Co., 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 51 (Fla. Pasco Cty. Ct. 2001) in ruling that the document was not a valid assignment and, therefore, Appellant did not have standing to maintain this action. I reverse.
An assignment is an “act by which one person transfers to another, or causes to vest in another, his right of property or interest therein.” State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Ray, 556 So. 2d 811, 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Contrary to the finding of the trial court, the “Patient Consent and Authorization” is a valid assignment. First, the term “assignment” is used three (3) times in the document. Furthermore, it can be logically inferred that, by executing the “Patient Consent and Authorization,” which directs Appellee to pay the medical benefits directly to Appellant, Appellant and Mr. Weiner intended to eliminate Mr. Weiner from the process of paying the medical bills. In other words, Appellant and Mr. Weiner intended that Mr. Weiner knowingly and intentionally sign an agreement in plain language, conferring to Appellant Mr. Weiner’s right to receive payment of the medical benefits. Mr. Weiner assigned his right to receive payment of the medical benefits owed to him by Appellee under the insurance policy. See South Fla. Orthopaedic, L.L.P. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 10Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 402 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2003); Larusso v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., Case No. 02-16241 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2003); Allstate Ins. Co. v. BMW Enters., Inc., 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 95 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. 2001).
Because Appellant did receive a valid assignment from Mr. Weiner, Appellant has standing to maintain this action. Therefore, the trial court’s Final Order of Dismissal, entered September 10, 2003, is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith.
* * *
