15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 123a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Failure to obtain reasonable proof within 30 days — Clarification — Appellate court clarifies that in reversing summary judgment predicated on peer review having been obtained after benefits were denied and due and remanding case, question of legal and factual sufficiency of peer review affidavit remains, and trial court must determine validity
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. PARTNERS IN HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, a/a/o/ CECILIA YANIQUE GERLIN, Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case Nos. 06-187 AP, 06-324 AP (Consolidated). L.C. Case No. 05-10682 CC 05. December 18, 2007. An appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Teretha Lundy Thomas, Judge. Counsel: June Galkoski Hoffman, Fowler White Burnett, P.A., for Appellant. Dean A. Mitchell and Richard E. Doherty, Law Offices of Richard E. Doherty, P.A., for Appellee.[Original Opinion at 14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 939a]
[Editor’s note: See 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 499a.]
(Before CINDY S. LEDERMAN, MARK KING LEBAN, and BEATRICE BUTCHKO, JJ.)
(BUTCHKO, J.) Appellee, Partners in Heath Chiropractic Center (“PHCC”), assignee medical provider for Cecelie Gerlin seeks clarification, reconsideration and rehearing from this Court’s Opinion filed on July 12, 2007. Upon further consideration of Appellee’s Motion for Clarification and Appellant, United Automobile Insurance Company’s (“United”) response, we grant clarification to the extent that it was and remains this Court’s intent to reverse summary judgment in so far as it was predicated upon the peer review having been obtained after benefits were denied and were due. However, a significant question remains regarding the “legal” and “factual” sufficiency of Dr. Merritt’s peer review affidavit which may, in turn, affect the appropriateness of the trial court’s decision on summary judgment. Therefore, the trial court is hereby ordered to conduct necessary proceedings and make a determination as to the “legal” and “factual” validity of Dr. Merritt’s affidavit. This court retains jurisdiction upon proper motion for further review thereafter.
In all other respects rehearing is denied.
REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion. (LEDERMAN and LEBAN, JJ., concur.)
