13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 378a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — MRI — Patient brokering — Fee splitting — Where undisputed facts demonstrate that medical provider rendered no professional or technical services pertaining to MRI bill, lease agreement between provider and scan center and employment agreement between provider and physician that interpreted MRI constitute illegal patient brokering and/or fee splitting
PROSPER DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, INC., (a/a/o Giovan Mayanschi), Plaintiff, vs. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 00-23298 COCE 53. December 7, 2005. Robert W. Lee, Judge. Counsel: Robert E. O’Connell, Boca Raton, for Plaintiff. Gregory P. Hengber, Hengber, Goldstein & Ray, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Defendant.
FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT
This cause came before the Court on December 6, 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, finds as follows:
Background. This is a PIP case involving payment of a single MRI bill. The Defendant claims that it is not obligated to pay the bill because it involves illegal patient brokering and/or fee splitting.
Conclusions of Law. Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits conclusively show that there remain no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510.
The burden is on the moving party to establish the non-existence of any genuine issue of material fact. Romero v. All Claims Insurance Repairs, Inc., 698 So.2d 605, 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). In determining that no issue of material fact exists, the trial court may rely upon exhibits, affidavits and pleadings on file. See Mack v. Commercial Industrial Park, Inc., 541 So.2d 800, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Once the movant tenders competent evidence to support the motion, the party against whom judgment is sought must present contrary evidence to reveal a genuine issue. It is not enough for the party opposing summary judgment merely to assert that an issue exists. Buitrago v. Rohr, 672 So.2d 646, 648 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The issue for the Court is whether the pleadings on file and record evidence establish that the MRI provided to Giovan Mayanschi was rendered by the Plaintiff. In this case, the pleadings on file and record evidence submitted herewith demonstrates conclusively that no genuine issue of material fact exists on this issue.
The undisputed facts demonstrate that the Plaintiff rendered no services at all pertaining to the MRI bill in this case, professional or technical. Therefore, the case of Regional MRI of Orlando, Inc. v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 884 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA), is clearly distinguishable. Rather, this case is similar to Medical Management Group, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 811 So.2d 705 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) in which a summary judgment in favor of the insurer was affirmed. The Court finds the arrangement in the instant case to be violative of Fla. Stat. §817.505(1)(b) (2002) as a matter of law.
Although referred to as a “lease agreement” in the instant case, the Court finds that this agreement amounts to no more than the “services agreement” which was rejected by Judge Herring in Nuwave Diagnostics, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 6 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 522 (Broward Cty. Ct. 1999) (deeming the agreement a “legal fiction”).
In reaching this decision, the Court finds persuasive the decision of the Honorable Thomas M. Lynch in Prosper Diagnostic Centers v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., Order on Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment, Case No. 00-18254 CACE 11 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. Feb. 4, 2002), in which Judge Lynch found that the “lease arrangement between Plaintiff and MRI Scan Center and the employment agreement between Plaintiff and Dr. Robert L. Kagan, M.D., P.A. constitute illegal patient brokering and/or fee splitting under §817.505, Florida Statutes.” Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
Summary Final Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendant. The Plaintiff shall take nothing in this action, and the Defendant shall go hence without day. The Court reserves jurisdiction to consider an award of attorney’s fees and costs.
