14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 322a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Summary judgment — Factual issues — Reasonableness of charges
PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. PETER GODLESKI, M.D., P.A., et al., a/a/o Ivette Rodriguez, Appellee(s). Circuit Court, 18th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Seminole County. Case No. 05-101-AP. May 11, 2006. Appeal from the County Court for Seminole County, Honorable John R. Sloop, County Court Judge. Counsel: Douglas H. Stein, for Appellant. Dean A. Mitchell, for Appellee.
[Editor’s note: County court order at 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 891a]
(NELSON, D., J.) Progressive Express Insurance Company appeals a Final Summary Judgment for Peter Godleski, M.D., P.A.
Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact, and if the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000).
The reasonableness of a charge for medical services is an issue of fact precluding summary judgment. See Spencer v. Halifax Hospital Dist., 242 So.2d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970) (reversing summary judgment where issue of fact existed as to the reasonableness of the charges for medical services); Leal v. Palm Springs General Hosp., Inc., of Hialeah, 218 So.2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (reversing summary judgment where issue of fact existed as to the reasonableness of the charges for medical services).
In granting summary judgment, the trial court cited Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(e), stating that Progressive did not offer any information that would allow the court to conclude the results of the insurer’s auditing system would be admissible evidence, and that therefore, the insurer has failed to meet its burden in opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
The central issue in this case is the reasonableness of Dr. Godleski’s charges. Dr. Godleski claims the charges are reasonable, and Progressive contends that they are not. Progressive’s affidavit merely states that the charges are reasonable as per the determination made by the Mitchell Medical system program. It does not provide any insight as to how this determination was made, but instead serves as a blanket denial of Dr. Godleski’s allegations. Such a generalized denial does not create the requisite genuine issue of material fact, and therefore is insufficient to survive a Motion for Summary Judgment.
ACCORDINGLY the Final Summary Judgment is AFFIRMED.
