12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 368c
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Medical provider was not required to submit additional demand letters prior to seeking to amend complaint to allege additional reductions taken on same CPT codes as sought in previous demand letter — Motion to amend granted
OCCUPATIONAL AND REHABILITATION CENTER, P.A., as assignee of Eddie F. Staton, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE AUTO PRO INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Small Claims Court. Case No. 16-2003-SC-12598, Division O. August 16, 2004. Ronald P. Higbee, Judge. Counsel: Nicholas J. Christopolis, Vernis & Bowling of North Florida, P.A., Jacksonville. David G. Candelaria, Farah, Farah, and Abbott, P.A., Jacksonville.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE coming before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, held on July 27, 2004, and the Court heard argument of counsel for both parties. In consideration thereof, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. As a condition precedent to filing this action, Plaintiff submitted a “demand letter” for usual and customary reductions taken by the Defendant on October 1, 2003 & October 3, 2003.
2. In Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Plaintiff is seeking payment for reductions taken on the same CPT Codes as sought in Plaintiff’s “demand letter.” However, at this time, Plaintiff seeks payment for reductions taken by Defendant on September 15, 2003, through November 6, 2003.
3. Defendant has been aware of the reductions taken for more than the fifteen-day time period set forth in the statute, and prior to the filing of the instant action, this notice by the Defendant effectively serves the same purpose as the “demand letter” requirement pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.736(11) (2003).
4. Defendant has presented a technical argument, that despite Plaintiff’s initial “demand letter” placing Defendant on notice that Plaintiff disputes the reductions, Plaintiff is required to submit an additional “demand letter” each time Plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint. Florida Statute § 627.736(11) (2003) does not specifically address this issue. The long-standing policy of the courts of Florida, as announced in the case of Palma v. State Farm, 489 So.2d 147, 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) is to construe provisions of the Florida No-Fault Act liberally in favor of the insured. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is granted and Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is hereby filed.
* * *
