14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 85a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Claim form — Professional license number — MRI facility — Statutory requirement to place professional license number on CMS 1500 form does not apply to MRI facilities because facilities do not have, and are not required to have, such license
VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES, INC. a/a/o Carter Solange, Plaintiff, vs. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant(s). County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 05-13350 SP 23 (03). October 20, 2006. Linda Singer Stein, Judge. Counsel: Harley N. Kane, Kane & Kane, Boca Raton. Miriam Merlo, Coral Gables.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This action was heard on August 22, 2006 on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. The parties agree that there are no disputed questions of fact and this case rests upon a pure question of law. After hearing argument of counsel, being fully advised, and reviewing Defendant’s Motion and Supporting Affidavit, Plaintiff’s Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment, as well as the case law set forth by both parties, the Court makes the following findings:
Plaintiff is a medical provider that submitted a CMS 1500 form to the Defendant/insurer for payment of an MRI Bill for services rendered on November 29, 2004. Plaintiff did not include any professional license number in Box 31 of the CMS 1500 form. Plaintiff sent the CMS 1500 form with a report for the services rendered on its letterhead and signed by a physician, Jeffery Fidel, M.D. (the interpreting radiologist). Part of Plaintiff’s bill included charges for the interpretation of the MRI performed. It is also undisputed that there is no professional license number granted or required of an MRI supplier.
The issue in this case is whether Fla. Stat. Section 627.736(5)(d) (2003) requires an MRI facility to place a professional license number on a bill even though the facility does not itself have such a number nor is required to have such a license. The Court finds that this statute does not apply to an MRI facility, since it cannot comply with providing a license number that it is not required to have.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied. Plaintiff shall submit a proposed Final Judgment to Defendant for review before submitting same to the Court.
