11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 796b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical provider — Entity not performing necessary medical services — No error in concluding that entity which picked up CT scan and x-ray studies from medical provider that conducted tests and gave studies to doctors contracted to interpret studies did not provide necessary medical services under PIP statute — Summary judgment for insurer affirmed
PHYSICIANS REFERRAL & MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. (a/a/f Manuel Louro), Appellant, vs. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and Broward County. Case No. 03-14323 (12). L.T. Case No. 02-013999 SP COCE 49. July 8, 2004. Dorian Damoorgian, Judge. Counsel: Steven M. Goldsmith, Boca Raton, for Appellant. Jacqueline G. Emanuel, Riley, Knoerr & Emanuel, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.
[Lower court order at 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 152c.]
OPINION
Appellant, Physician Referral & Medical Services, Inc. (“PRMS”), appeals the entry of final summary judgment in favor of the Appellee, Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”). The standard of appellate review is de novo. Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, 760 So. 2d 126,130 (Fla. 2000).
By way of background, Manuel Louro was insured by Allstate Insurance Company with personal injury protection coverage. After a motor vehicle accident, Idea Health Network took a CT scan and x-rays of Mr. Louro. Thereafter, Ideal contacted PRMS for purposes of having the various studies interpreted. PRMS picked up the CT scan and x-ray studies and gave them to two medical doctors who, by agreement with PRMS, interpreted the studies. PRMS does not provide medical services or employ medical doctors. PRMS also contracted with another party to transcribe the doctors’ interpretations.
On these undisputed facts, Allstate filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that PRMS did not render medical services to Allstate’s insured as required by Section 627.736, Fla. Stat. (2002) (“PIP statute”) and, therefore; was not entitled to recover payment for its nonmedical services. The trial court granted the summary judgment and entered final judgment in favor of Allstate.
Section 627.736(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002), provides that the insurer must pay 80% of the “medically necessary medical . . . services.” Moreover, Section 627.736(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002), provides that “[a]ny physician, hospital, clinic, or other person or institution lawfully rendering treatment to an injured person for a bodily injury covered by personal injury protection insurance may charge only a reasonable amount for the services and supplies rendered. . .”.
This case is strikingly similar to Federated National Insurance Co. v. Physicians Charter Services, 788 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). In Physicians Charter, the court determined that “[t]here is no provision in Florida’s personal injury protection statutes for the payment of policy benefits to a third party who has not performed medical services.” Id. at 404.
In the instant case, PRMS did not provide medical services or employ medical professionals who did provide medical treatment to Allstate’s insured. Moreover, the lower court correctly concluded that services provided by PRMS do not constitute necessary medical services under the PIP statute. Id.
Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed.
* * *
