13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 857a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Reasonable, related and necessary treatment — Error to direct verdict in favor of insurer based on erroneous conclusion that treating physician’s testimony that medical bills were reasonable and explanation of how he arrived at that opinion did not establish prima facie showing of reasonableness of bills — New trial required
JEFFREY S. BEITLER, M.D., P.A., a/o/a Kathleen Weekes, Appellant, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 04-598 AP. L. C. Case No. 01-16543 SP 23. June 5, 2006.
(Before SMITH, F., GERSTEIN, N., and CARDONNE ELY, G., JJ.)
(Per Curiam.) The appellant, Jeffrey S. Beitler, M.D., was a treating physician of appellee’s insured. The insured, Kathleen Weekes, had assigned her benefits to Dr. Beitler. The appellee, Progressive Express Insurance Company, denied payment of Dr. Beitler’s bills and a trial ensued.
At the end of the plaintiff’s case, the Court directed a verdict in favor of appellee. The Court erroneously agreed with the appellee that the treating physician’s testimony somehow did not meet a prima facie showing of the reasonableness of the medical bills.
In this case, the appellant, a medical doctor with extensive experience, testified that his bills were reasonable and also testified how he arrived at his belief of reasonableness. This case should have been decided by a jury, without additional expert testimony. Garret v. Morris Kirschman and Company, Inc., 336 So.2d 566 (Fla. 1976); East West Karate Assn., Inc., v. Riquelme, 638 So.2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Irwin v. Blake, 589 So.2d 973 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
At page 10 of its brief, the appellee argued that the patient can testify as to the reasonableness of the bills incurred. East West Karate, id. Progressive also agrees that even a car owner is competent to testify. It follows that the doctor who treated the plaintiff is likewise competent to testify. Appellee fails to cite even one case which rules otherwise. The appellee cites Albertson’s, Inc. v. Brady, 475 So.2d 986 (2d DCA 1985), but fails to note that the doctors in Albertson “did not relate the charges” to the plaintiff’s accident, a completely different scenario from the trial below. The appellee attempted to create a requirement of expertise on “billing”, as opposed to “medical issues.” In doing so, Progressive led the Court to an erroneous ruling.
Therefore, this Court reverses this case for a new trial and grants appellant’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs to be determined by the trial Court.
