11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 676a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Magnetic resonance imaging — Statute that requires adjustment of MRI charge under “medical Consumer Price Index for Florida” that did not exist at time payment was due is impossible to execute — Application of some other medical consumer price index or newly-enacted formula to calculate the medical consumer price index would violate principles of strict interpretation and constitute legislating — Summary judgment granted in favor of insurer
REGIONAL MRI OF ORLANDO, INC., ASSIGNEE FOR SAHARA HARRIS, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and forSeminole County. Case No. 03-SC-001567. April 20, 2004. Carmine M. Bravo, Judge. Counsel: Peter A. Shapiro, Orlando. Anthony J. Parrino, St. Petersburg.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’ S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came on for hearing on March 31, 2004, on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court, having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, finds:
1. Ms. Harris, the insured/assignor was insured by the Defendant for her automobile accident of December 2, 2002, including PIP benefits.
2. On February 19, 2003, Plaintiff performed an MRI on Ms. Harris at the request of Dr. John Gray, the treating physician.
3. At first, Defendant paid the Plaintiff 175% of the 2001 Part B Medicare rate for the MRI performed but later paid the Plaintiff 200% of the 2001 Part B Medicare rate for the MRI performed.
4. The Defendant did not apply and pay any amount for the adjustment under the “medical Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Florida” (an inflation factor) as clearly stated in the applicable Florida Statute 627.736(5)(b)(5), 2001 (since amended October 1, 2003 to more definitely calculate an adjustment based upon the CPI).
5. It is undisputed by the parties that no single or exact “medical Consumer Price Index for Florida” actually existed at the time payment was due.
6. The statute on its face is neither vague nor ambiguous. It is clear that there is simply legislative error or oversight which makes the statute impossible to execute. Outside knowledge of the fact that there was no “medical CPI for Florida” had to be discovered to render its application and execution a nullity.
7. There is no evidence before the court to explain legislative intent.
8. Plaintiff counsel’s well-intentioned argument to give the earlier statute meaning by applying some other CPI, a more general CPI, or the newly enacted formula to calculate CPI, violates principles of strict interpretation and engages in legislating a result even if for a good moral purpose.
9. Additionally, while it appears undisputed that other defendant insurance companies in other cases have settled and agreed to pay some CPI adjustment, it is not precedent for imposing it in this case if not agreed to and not compensable under applicable law. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
* * *
