12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 545b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — PIP insurer is not relieved from payment of benefits for otherwise reasonable, necessary, and related medical expense for MRI just because bill submitted to insurer reflects amount in excess of that allowed under statutory scheme
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff(s), vs. A-1 MOBILE MRI, INC., (Maude Duncan-Richards), Defendant(s). Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case No. 04-3001 (03). February 23, 2005. Counsel: Robert J. Bradford, Jr., Fort Lauderdale. Michael J. Neimand, Miami.
ORDER AFFIRMING JUDGMENT
(PATTI ENGLANDER HENNING, J.) THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on an appeal from a final summary disposition rendered by the Broward County Court sitting in its Small Claims capacity. The Court reviewed the briefs and heard argument of counsel.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that the Judgment is affirmed for the following reasons:
Appellant raises one issue on appeal. The true crux of that issue is whether a PIP insurer is relieved from payment of benefits for an otherwise “reasonable, necessary, and related” medical expense for an MRI service for no other reason than the bill submitted to the insurer reflects an amount in the excess of that allowed under the statutory scheme imposed by Florida Statute §627.736(5)(b)(5). This Court holds that it is not and that the insurer remains obligated to pay the amount allowed under the statutory fee scheme based on the percentage of coverage afforded under the policy.
The material facts are not in dispute. The appeal turns solely on a question of statutory construction — a pure question of law. The standard of review governing a trial court’s ruling on a Motion for Summary Judgment posing a pure question of law is de novo. Major League Baseball vs. Morsani, 790 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 2001).
The responsibility of the court when construing a statute is to give the statutory words their plain and ordinary meaning.” U.S. Security Ins. Co. vs. Cahuasqui, 760 So.2d 1101, 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). The plain meaning of the words “may be charged” as chosen by the legislatures for use in Subsection (5)(b)(5) governing PIP claims for payment of MRI expenses is “may be collected.” This Court will not read in the statute a penalty provision which is clearly not there. Holly vs. Auld, 450 So.2d 271 (Fla. 1984). The goal of the No Fault Act is to provide swift and virtually automatic payment of benefits. Negating in toto the insurer’s statutory and contractual obligation to pay when the insurer is capable of paying at the statutorily allowed amount based on the percentage of coverage afforded under the policy can only be considered an interpretation leading to an inappropriate result. Albert vs. Department of Health, 763 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
An otherwise payable MRI bill should not be made invalid and unpayable simply because the provider’s bill reflected the amount in accordance with the reimbursement amount authorized by the applicable fee schedule.
Accordingly, the Judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed.
* * *
