13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 499a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Insurer’s motion for summary judgment as to issue of whether plaintiff complied with demand letter requirement is denied where there is disputed issue of material fact as to PIP contact person listed on Department of Insurance website — Coverage — Medical provider — Referral and billing service — Summary judgment is granted in favor of insurer as to issue of whether amount billed by plaintiff was improper where plaintiff provided only referral and billing services not compensable under PIP statute and is not physician, hospital, clinic or other person or institution lawfully rendering treatment and entitled to recover PIP benefits
MICRO DIAGNOSTIC, INC. AS ASSIGNEE OF OLGA E. REYES, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE SOUTHEASTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 03-7748 SP 26 (02). February 10, 2005. Lawrence D. King, Judge. Counsel: Jorge Montero. Maury L. Udell, Beighley & Myrick, P.A., Miami.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on January 26, 2005, on Defendant PROGRESSIVE SOUTHEASTERN INSURANCE COMPANY’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Court having reviewed the file, heard argument of counsel, considered same, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the issue of whether the Plaintiff complied with Fla. Stat. § 627.736(11) (2003) is DENIED. The Court finds a question of material fact with respect to the correct PIP contact person listed on the Department of Insurance’s website in August and September of 2003.
2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the issue of whether the amount billed by the Plaintiff was improper is GRANTED.
3. The Court finds that based on the unrebuked deposition testimony of Plaintiff’s Corporate Representative, Plaintiff provided no medical services, but rather simply provided referral and billing services which are not compensable under Florida law.
4. The medical services (reading of the x-rays) were provided by an independent contract, Dr. Carlos Lianes. The Plaintiff is not a physician, hospital, clinic or other person or institution lawfully rendering the treatment to the claimant, as defined in Fla. Stat. § 627.736(1)(a) and (5)(a), and therefore is not entitled to recover personal injury protection benefits from this Defendant. See Federated National Insurance Company v. Physicians Charter Services, 788 So.2d 403 (Fla.3d DCA 2001); Medical Management Group of Orlando, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 811 So.2d 705 (Fla.5th DCA 2002).
5. Plaintiff shall take nothing by its Complaint and Defendant shall go hence without delay.
