12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 937a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — No abuse of discretion in refusing to consider peer review notice when entering summary judgment in favor of medical providers where affidavit was untimely filed, and trial court found absence of any compelling reasons or exigent circumstances which might excuse tardiness
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs, v. PHYSICIAN’S FIRST CHOICE INTERPRETATION, INC. and A-1 MOBILE MRI, INC., A/A/O GLORIA CRUZ, Defendant. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case No. 04-12164 CACE (02). L.C. Case No. 03-8327 COCE (56). June 15, 2005.
OPINION
(VICTOR TOBIN, J.) THIS CAUSE is before the court upon appellant’s, United Automobile Insurance Company’s, appeal of the County Court’s Final Summary Judgment in favor of the appellee, Physician’s First Choice Interpretation, Inc. and A-1 Mobile MRI, Inc. as assignee of Gloria Cruz. For the reasons stated below the judgment is affirmed.
The Appellant raises one issue in the appeal. The appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to consider a Notice of Filing Peer Review when the court entered Summary Judgment in favor of the appellee. The standard of review for a trial court’s ruling on a motion for mistrial is an abuse of discretion standard. Old Plantation Corp. v. Maule Industries, 68 So.2d 180 (Fla. 1953). If reasonable persons could disagree as to the propriety of the trial court’s action, no abuse of discretion can be found. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197. The records, briefs, and applicable case law reviewed by this court reveal no abuse of discretion by the trial court when refusing to consider the Peer Review Notice.
In the case at bar, the affidavit was untimely filed in violation of F.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c). A trial judge does not abuse her discretion in refusing to consider late affidavits filed in defense of a motion for summary judgment. Lennertz v. Dorsey, 421 So.2d 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In addition the trial court found an absence of any compelling reasons or exigent circumstances which might excuse the tardiness of the affidavits. The court acted properly and the summary judgment is affirmed.
* * *
