13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 184a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Claim form — Signature of medical provider — Where provider gave oral authorization for billing company to affix signature to claim form, insurer’s defense of lack of notice due to provider’s failure to personally sign form fails
ALL COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER, INC. (a/a/o Steven Rogers), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 03-8823 COCE 53. December 19, 2005. Robert W. Lee, Judge. Counsel: Peggy Urbaneja, Lighthouse Point, for Plaintiff. Jonathan S. Brooks, Boca Raton, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on December 16, 2005 for hearing of the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Court’s having reviewed the Motion and entire Court file; heard argument; reviewed the relevant legal authorities; and been sufficiently advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
Background. In this PIP case, one of the Defendant’s defenses in that the supplying physician failed to affix her signature to the CMS form. The Plaintiff acknowledges that the physician did not sign the form herself, but rather acknowledges they were signed by others designated by the physician. The Defendant argues that this in essence amounts to forgery of the physician’s name.
Conclusions of Law. The Defendant argues that the CMS forms are facially deficient, and as a result, fail to put the insurer on notice of a covered loss as required by Fla. Stat. §627.736(5)(d). The pertinent portion of this statute reads: “an insurer shall not be considered to have been furnished with notice of the loss or medical bills due unless the statements are properly completed in their entirety as to all material provisions, with all relevant information being provided therein” (emphasis added). The statute further requires the use of the CMS form (or its equivalent).
Proceeding to the question of having someone else sign the physician’s name, the Court notes that federal regulations governing use of CMS forms likewise provide that the form is to be “signed by the provider, supplier, or hospital.” 42 CFR §424.33(b) (2005). Administrative regulations further elaborate that the “Physician (Supplier) Signature Requirement” may be met by “authoriz[ing] an employee (e.g., nurse, secretary) to enter the physician’s signature in item 31 [. . .:] (1) Manually; (2) By stamp-facsimile or block letters; [or] (3) By computer.” Carriers Manual Part 3, §3057(B)(1)(d) (2004). The administrative regulation further provides that a physician may “[a]uthorize a nonemployee agent, e.g., billing service or association, to enter as in d. above, the physician’s signature in item 31 of the Form HCFA-1500.” Id. §3057(b)(1)(e). A copy of the administrative regulation is attached to this Order and made part of the record as Exhibit “A.” Although the regulation does not specifically define the term “manually,” its use typically suggests something produced by handwriting or typing. See O’Neal v. Bolling, 409 So.2d 1171, 1172 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). See also American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 796 (1976).
In the instant case, Dr. Goldstein acknowledged that although she had not provided written authorization for the billing company to affix her signature, she had provided oral authorization. The Defendant failed to point out anything in the record or any relevant legal authority which would not permit oral authorization. Therefore, there is no material dispute here, and the Defendant’s defense fails as a matter of law. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
* * *
