12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 782a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Reasonable, related and necessary expenses — Evidence — Accident report that does not include insured is not admissible evidence to defeat insured’s motion for partial summary judgment on issue of reasonableness, relatedness and medical necessity because report is not self-authenticating and neither statutes nor rules provide hearsay exception concerning accident reports — Where accident report was sole evidence relied upon by insurer at summary judgment hearing, motion for partial summary judgment granted
MILLENNIUM DIAGNOSTIC & IMAGING CENTER, INC., a/a/o: Jose L. Garcia, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Civil Division. Case No. 04-5097 SP 25 (2). April 15, 2005. Cristina Pereyra-Shuminer, Judge.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUEOF REASONABLE, RELATED AND NECESSARY
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on March 30, 2005, on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability for Reasonableness, Relation & Medical Necessity, and the Court having reviewed the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, interrogatories, and all pertinent portions of the file, and having heard argument by the parties, hereby finds and concludes as follows:
FACTUAL STATEMENT
On December 14, 2003, Jose Luis Garcia was injured in an automobile accident, sustaining personal injuries. He thereafter sought medical treatment for these injuries and assigned his benefits to the Plaintiff herein, Millennium Diagnostic & Imaging Center, Inc. Defendant, United Automobile Insurance Company insured Jose Luis Garcia under an automobile insurance policy providing for personal injury protection benefits. The Plaintiff submitted its medical bills to the Defendant and Defendant has declined payment, giving rise to the instant lawsuit for PIP benefits.
On or about March 9, 2005, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of reasonableness, relatedness, and medical necessity. In addition, Plaintiff filed the detailed affidavit of the insured’s treating physician, Dr. Hector Maldonado. Dr. Maldonado, in his affidavit, concludes that Mr. Garcia was involved in the subject automobile accident on December 14, 2003, that the injuries Mr. Garcia sustained were related to that accident, and that the medical treatment afforded to Mr. Garcia was both reasonable in prices charged and medically necessary to treat the injuries sustained by Mr. Garcia as a result of the accident.
At the March 30, 2005, summary judgment hearing, Defendant solely filed and relied upon the accident report which did not include Mr. Garcia in the accident report. The Plaintiff objected to the introduction of the accident report as admissible evidence as the Plaintiff argued that the accident report is not self-authenticating nor is there a hearsay exception for the admissibility of the accident report as admissible evidence.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The issue before this Court is whether or not this Court should consider the accident report as admissible evidence to defeat Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. For the proposition of the admissibility of the police report, the Defendant relies upon United Automobile Insurance Company v. Arriba, Case No. 03-069 AP (Circ. Miami-Dade County, Florida, October 14, 2003) [10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 972a, On Motion for Rehearing 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 404b], an accident report which lacked the name of the patient on the police report created an issue of fact to prevent the entry of summary judgment.
In turn, the Plaintiff has presented to this Court United Automobile Insurance Company v. Quiropractic & Therapy Center a/a/o: Philomme Chavannes, Case No. 04-068 AP (Circ. Miami-Dade County, Florida, November 30, 2004) [12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 115a], which provides that a crash report is a self-authenticating document that may be offered into evidence without testimony is not supported by case law. Further, the Quiropractic court held that when examining the issue of whether the accident report can be introduced without testimony, Florida law reveals that “a records setting forth factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law is not admissible under the “Public records and reports” hearsay exception, Section 90.803(8), Florida Statutes. Lee v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 698 So.2d 1194, 1201 (Fla. 1997).
This Court adheres to the later view that accident reports are not self-authenticating and that the statute or rules do not provide for an exception to hearsay concerning accident reports. It is apparent that a conflict exists as to the admissibility of accident reports between the Arriba and Quiropractic appellate decisions.
As a result of the conflict presented by these decisions this Court has sought additional guidance to support this order. The legislature has enacted Florida Statute 316.066(4) which provides that Florida Traffic Accident Reports are inadmissible in all civil and criminal proceedings. In Vender v. State, 849 So.2d 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), the Florida 5th District Court of Appeal held that:
“Subsections 316.066(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1999) require the driver of a vehicle that has been involved in an accident to make a written report of the crash, if the accident involved bodily injury or death of any person or property damage of at least $500.00. Because the driver is required to make this report, subsection (4) of the statute excludes the report and statements made to law enforcement for the purpose of completing the crash report from use as evidence at trial in any civil or criminal proceeding.”
(Emphasis added “excludes the report”)
In Thomas v. Gottieb, 520 So.2d 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), the Florida 4th District Court of Appeals held that in addition to the report itself, statements made to police Officers or even the absence of such statement are likewise inadmissible. (Emphasis added “in addition to the report itself”). Further, Stoll v. State, 762 So.2d 870 Fla. 2000), which cites Bolin v. State, 736 So.2d 1160, 1167 (Fla. 1999), finding that police reports are hearsay under Section 90.803, Fla. Stat. (1997).
Unverified documents cannot be considered for summary judgment purposes; First North American Nat. Bank v. Hummel, 825 So.2d 502 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2002), providing,
“Hummel did not file any affidavits or other admissible evidence in opposition to FNANB’s motion, and the pleadings and discovery contained in the records did not otherwise show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. While Hummel filed three documents with the county court, the documents were not authenticated or supported by any affidavit or other evidentiary proof. Therefore, based on the records properly before it, the county court correctly granted summary judgement. By relying on the unauthenticated documents to reverse the county court, the circuit court did not apply the correct law.”
The accident report, notwithstanding its obvious inadmissibility, was also never authenticated. In summary judgment matters, it is the duty of the lower courts to exclude from consideration all facts that would be inadmissible in evidence. Evans v. Borkowski, 139 So.2d 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966).
For these reasons and based upon the clear and abundant Florida Law on the subject of admissibility of accident reports in civil proceedings, the Court strikes the accident report, and, there being no genuine issue of material fact with respect to the issue of whether the medical services rendered in this case are reasonable, related, and medically necessary, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment be and the same is hereby GRANTED.
* * *
