12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 938a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Evidence — Harmful error to strike medical records relating to NCVs admitted into evidence during medical provider’s case, which were admissible under evidence code — With records in evidence, error to grant motion for directed verdict on NCV issue at close of provider’s case — Error to grant motion for directed verdict on issue of non-payment for MRIs where provider had arguable position of substantial compliance with statutes relating to form and substance of bills and predicate for arguing that preparation and submission of bills complied with tradition, custom and commonly accepted business practice in PIP community
PROSPER DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, Appellant, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case No. 04-01342 (13). June 10, 2005. Counsel: Kate G. Burnett, Ft. Lauderdale. Emilio Stillo, Coral Gables.
OPINION
(LEROY H. MOE, J.) This is an appeal from the Broward County Court. The Appellant was the Plaintiff in the Trial Court. It sued the Defendant for payment of medical bills incurred by the Defendant’s insured pursuant to what is commonly called the Florida PIP statutes.
At the conclusion of the Plaintiff’s case, the Defendant moved the court for an order granting the Defendant’s Motion for Directed Verdict pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.480. The Trial Court entered an Order granting the Defendant’s motion, a copy of which is attached for reference. That Order and the subsequent Final Judgment for the Defendant is the subject of this appeal.
After reviewing the transcript of the trial proceedings, the documents introduced into evidence at the trial, the briefs of the parties and the opinions on the issues in this appeal rendered by various county, circuit and appellate courts in the state and other applicable law, this Court finds as follows:
1. It was harmful error for the Trial Court to strike the medical records relating to the NCVs that were admitted into evidence during the Plaintiff’s case. These records were admissible in evidence pursuant to the applicable provisions of Florida’s Evidence Code. The Trial Court should have initially let the jury determine the weight to be given the records, their meaning and credibility, pursuant to proper standard or special jury instructions by the Court.
2. With these records in evidence, and after considering the testimony of all the witnesses, it was harmful error to grant the Defendant’s Motion for Directed Verdict at the close of the Plaintiff’s case on the NCV issue.
3. It was error to grant the Defendant’s Motion for Directed Verdict at the close of the Plaintiff’s case on the issue of non-payment for the MRIs. The record indicates the Plaintiff had at least an arguable position of substantial compliance with the Florida Statutes relating to the form and substance of the bills the Plaintiff submitted for payment, and a predicate for arguing compliance with the tradition, custom and commonly accepted business practices in the PIP community relating to the manner in which the bills were prepared and submitted for payment.
In summary, the record indicates there was enough evidence to survive a Motion for Directed Verdict on both the NCV and MRI issues.
It is suggested that if this case is retried, and/or in similar cases or situations, the Trial Court should take advantage of the provisions of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.480(b), reserve ruling on a Motion for a Directed Verdict, state on the record that for purposes of the continuity of the trial the motion is denied, submit the case to the jury, let the jury render a verdict, and then either grant or deny any Motion for Directed Verdict in post-trial proceedings. This procedure is authorized by the rule and by appellate decisions construing the rule.
For the reasons set forth above, the Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Directed Verdict is reversed, the Final Judgment entered on behalf of the Defendant is vacated and set aside, and this case is remanded to the County Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The court reserves jurisdiction for consideration of fees and costs, and for all other lawful matters.
* * *
