14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1043b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Equitable — Where at time of emergency treatment insured was unable to sign Consent to Treatment and Authorizations Guarantee form because of injury to arm, and insured filed affidavit indicating his intention to assign benefits, trial court erred in failing to find equitable assignment
FLORIDA EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, KANG AND ASSOCIATES, MD, PA., as Assignee of Aduago Nnadi, Appellant(s), vs. FLORIDA AUTOMOBILE JOINT UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION, Appellee(s). Circuit Court, 18th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Seminole County. Case No. 05-78-AP. L.C. Case No. 04-SC-2613. August 28, 2007. Appeal from County Court, Seminole County. Counsel: Thomas Andrew Player, Weiss Legal Group, P.A., Maitland, for Appellant. Noel Espinoza, for Appellee.
ON REHEARING
(GALLUZZO, J.) THIS ACTION is being taken by the Court pursuant to the Appellant, Florida Emergency Physician’s, Motion for Rehearing. Pursuant to the reasoning provided herein, this Court grants rehearing, vacates the previous opinion in the above-referenced case, and issues the following opinion.
FEP provides emergency health care services to injured patients, including victims of automobile accidents. FEP provided emergency medical services for Adaugo Nnadi (“Nnadi”) for injuries he sustained in an automobile accident, pursuant to Nnadi’s PIP benefits provided by the Appellee, Florida Automobile Joint Underwriting Association (“FAJUA”). On the day of the accident, Nnadi sustained injuries to his arm. Because of Nnadi’s injured arm, he could not sign the “Consent to Treatment and Authorizations Guarantee,” which is the purported assignment of benefits agreement. Next to the line “Consent to Treatment Obtained by Telephone or in Person,” there is a space that states “unable to consent because:” and the words “injured arm” are written. There are no notations by the assignment paragraph, and the form is not signed by Nnadi.
Subsequently, FEP submitted its bill for treatment, and FAJUA declined to pay the bill. FEP sent FAJUA a demand letter, and FAJUA again refused to pay the bill. Thereafter, FEP filed an action against FAJUA for the unpaid bill.
FAJUA filed a motion for summary judgment contending that FEP lacked standing because it did not possess an assignment of benefits from Nnadi. FEP argued that an equitable assignment resulted, and also provided an affidavit from Nnadi wherein Nnadi attested that he intended to assign his benefits to FAJUA. After a hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the trial court entered an Order Entering Final Summary Judgment in favor of FAJUA, concluding that no assignment existed between Nnadi and FEP, and that therefore, FEP had no standing to bring the lawsuit at issue. The court ruled that the document which FEP claimed provided it with standing, entitled “Consent to Treatment and Authorizations and Guarantee,” was unsigned, and therefore, the form was not a valid assignment of benefits. The Court stated the words “injured arm” next to the portion that says “Consent to Treatment obtained by telephone or in person” clearly indicated consent for treatment, but in no way supported FEP’s contention that Nnadi’s insurance benefits were assigned.
FEP now appeals the Final Summary Judgment Order entered by the trial court and contends that the trial court erred by failing to find that an equitable assignment of benefits existed between FEP and Nnadi.
In the instant case, Nnadi who was insured by FAJUA, sustained injuries as the result of an automobile accident. At the time of treatment, Nnadi was unable to sign the “Consent to Treatment and Authorizations and Guarantee” because he injured his arm, and the form reflects this. However, during the course of litigation, Nnadi filed an affidavit with the trial court indicating that because of his injuries, he was treated at the scene by FEP. He understood that FEP was seeking his permission to be paid for their services by his insurance company, and that his intention then and now was to assign his benefits to FEP. The facts of the instant case demonstrate an intent by Nnadi to assign his benefits to FEP given Nnadi’s injuries, the fact that on the consent form, it states that he was unable to sign due to injuries to his arm, and Nnadi’s subsequent affidavit indicating his intention to assign benefits. Compare Progressive Express Insurance Company v. Rural Metro Ambulance, Inc., as assignee of Ashley Billings, No. 04-105-AP (Fla. 18th Circuit October 31, 2005) [14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 529a] (where assignor provided deposition testimony that she intended an assignment of benefits, there clearly existed case law supporting the position that an equitable assignment of benefits is reasonable where parol evidence demonstrates an intent to assign and an acceptance of the assignment). Therefore, the trial court erred in failing to find an equitable assignment of benefits.
Accordingly, the Final Summary Judgment is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
