12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 640a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — MRI — Fee schedule — Plain and ordinary meaning of language of MRI fee schedule provision of section 627.736(5)(b)(5) directs that fee schedule became effective upon act becoming law, which occurred on June 19, 2001 — Provision in section 11(3) providing for effective date of October 1, 2001, refers to other sections of act and is not in disharmony with section 627.736(5)(b)(5)
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. CENTRAL MAGNETIC IMAGING OPEN MRI OF PLANTATION, LTD., a/a/o SCOTT KANALEY, Appellees. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case No. 03-651 CACE (05). Consolidated with: 03-657 CACE (08) RUDY LUNDT, 03-658 CACE (08) TRINA BOSTWICK, 03-660 CACE (03) PAULINE CARTER, 03-664 CACE (09) ALIA ALI, 03-668 CACE (11) FARIA ALI. March 30, 2005. Counsel: Frances F. Guasch. Nancy Bennett. Kenneth J. Dorchak. Fernando Roig. Stacey A. Guilianti. Frank S. Goldstein.
OPINION
(RICHARD D. EADE, J.) THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Appellant’s, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), Appeal of the County Court’s entry of Summary Final Judgment in favor of Appellee, Central Magnetic Imaging Open MRI of Plantation, LTD. (“CMI”). Having reviewed the appellate record in its entirety, considered relevant case and statutory law, and otherwise being advised in the premises, this Court finds and decides as follows:
This is a consolidated appeal from six Summary Final Judgments which all certified the same question as a matter of great importance. The underlying cases arise from actions for personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits filed by CMI for treatment provided to various insureds of State Farm who assigned their PIP benefits to CMI. After CMI submitted its bills for payment, a dispute arose pertaining to the amount allowable under Section 627.736(5)(b)(5), Florida Statutes. State Farm asserts the MRI fee schedule became effective upon the act becoming law on June 19, 2001, whereas CMI asserts the MRI fee schedule in the amended PIP statute did not become effective until October 1, 2001, pursuant to Section 11, Chapter 2001-271, Laws of Florida. The parties stipulated the sole issue to be determined was the effective date governing the MRI fee schedule provision of Section 627.736(5)(b)(5). Section 627.736(5)(b)(5) reads in pertinent part as follows:
Effective upon this act becoming law and before November 1, 2001, allowable amounts that may be charged to a personal injury protection insurance insurer and insured for magnetic resonance imaging services shall not exceed 200 percent of the allowable amount under Medicare Part B for year 2001, for the area in which the treatment was rendered. Beginning November 1, 2001, allowable amounts that may be charged to a personal injury protection insurance insurer and insured for magnetic resonance imaging services shall not exceed 175 percent of the allowable amount under Medicare Part B for year 2001,. . .
However, Section 11, Chapter 2001-271, which provides the effective dates for many of the statutory provisions, reads in pertinent part as follows:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this act, this act shall take effect upon becoming a law . . .(3) Paragraphs (4)(b), (5)(b) and (c) and subsection 6 of Section 627.736, Florida Statutes, as amended by this act and subsection (11) of section 627.736, Florida Statutes shall apply to treatment and services occurring on or after October 1, 2001. . .
After hearing arguments from counsel, the trial court found the provisions conflicted, and determined October 1, 2001 was the effective date for the MRI fee schedule. The trial court reasoned the language of Section 627.736(5)(b)(5) was created in order to effectuate a 30 day grace period for the implementation of two levels of rate schedules within the statute, and the Legislature intended the MRI fee schedule become effective at the same time as other diagnostic tests referenced in Section 627.736(5)(b).
The trial court also certified the following question as being one of great importance: Whether the 2001 amendment to Section 627.736(5)(b)(5), Florida Statutes, enacted in Chapter 2001-271, became effective on June 19, 2001, the date that the act was signed by the Governor or on October 1, 2001, the date referenced in Section 11(3), Chapter 2001-271, Laws of Florida? The Fourth District Court of Appeals declined to accept discretionary review and transferred the case back to this circuit for disposition.
The issue of the effective date of the MRI fee schedule has been previously addressed in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. West Gables Open MRI Services, Inc., 846 So.2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) rehearing, rehearing en banc and certified question denied May 28, 2003. West Gables Open MRI Services, Inc. held the effective date of the fee schedule was June 19, 2001, as established by the plain language of Section 627.736(5)(b)(5). The court reasoned Section 627.736(5)(b)(5) provided its own effective date and remained unaltered by the language of Section 11(3) which referenced sections other than (5)(b)(5). Since the language of Section 627.736(5)(b)(5) is clear and no contradiction exists between it and the language of Section 11(3), it was improper for the trial court to use parol evidence to attempt to determine legislative intent. West Gables Open MRI Services, Inc., 846 So.2d 538 at 540; Specialty Restaurants Corp. v. City of Miami, 501 So.2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Similarly, this Court finds the plain and ordinary meaning of the language of the MRI provision directs the fee schedule is “effective upon this act becoming a law.” It is unnecessary to resort to statutory interpretation and construction where the statutory provisions are unambiguous. Rollins v. Pizzarelli, 761 So.2d 294 (Fla. 2000); Broz v. Rodriguez, 891 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Here, the Governor signed and approved the MRI provision on June 19, 2001. Accordingly, June 19, 2001 is the effective date for this provision, in accordance with Article III, Section 8 of the Florida Constitution. There is no disharmony between Section 11(3) and Section 627.736(5)(b)(5) as the former refers to other sections of the act, and the latter provides its own effective date. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Final Summary Judgments as entered by the trial court are reversed, and the causes are REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith.
* * *
