16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1156a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1612ROOS
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Notice of loss — Disclosure and acknowledgment form — Where original D&A form mailed to insurer contained only signature of treating physician, and when notified of that fact, physician mailed copy of D&A form to insured for his signature and thereafter submitted signed copy to insurer, D&A form satisfied statutory requirements — No merit to argument that entire case must be dismissed because medical provider concedes that one billing entry on initial bill is in error — Where there is issue of material fact as to what is owed for another billing entry, provider’s motion for summary judgment cannot be fully granted
ROOSEVELT REHAB & CHIROPRACTIC, INC. D/B/A BLANDING REHAB & CHIROPRACTIC, (AS ASSIGNEE OF KIMBERLY CRAVEY), Plaintiff, vs. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Clay County. Case No. 2008-SC-3021 C. September 24, 2009. Timothy R. Collins, Judge. Counsel: Law Office of Scott Craig, P.A., Jacksonville. James C. Rinaman, III, Jacksonville.
ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS cause came to be heard on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Final Judgment and Defendant’s Emergency Motion for a Final Summary Judgment and the Court, having considered the affidavits, argument of counsel, and the memorandums provided, finds as follows:
A. This is a Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits case filed pursuant to Chapter 627, Florida Statutes.
B. The Plaintiff is a medical provider who provided chiropractic care for the Defendant’s insured as a result of an automobile accident covered by the Defendant’s PIP policy issued to the insured.
C. The Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment raises several issues, one of which is whether or not the “Disclosure and Acknowledgement” form requirement of the statute was complied with in this case.
D. Both counsel agree that the initial “Disclosure and Acknowledgement” form was signed only by the doctor on April 30, 2008. It was later mailed to the Defendant within the time limits required by Chapter 627.
E. When the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the “Disclosure and Acknowledgement” form had not been signed by the insured, the Plaintiff’s doctor made a copy of the form in his file and took the form to the insured. Thereafter, the insured signed the form, and it was mailed to the Defendant.
F. As a result the Defendant was provided with an original document signed by the doctor without the insured’s signature and a copy of the original document which was signed by the insured.
G. This Court finds that the “Disclosure and Acknowledgement” form meets the requirements of Chapter 627.
H. The other issue raised by the Defendant’s Emergency Motion for Summary Judgment relates to the Defendant’s belief that since the Plaintiff now concedes that one of the billing entries listed on its initial bill (and demand letter) was in error that the entire case should be dismissed.
I. The Court finds this argument to be without merit. If the Defendant’s argument was followed to its logical conclusion, then any case where the Defendant was able to prove even the most inconsequential billing mistake would have to be dismissed and re-filed. This, the Court believes, is not the intent of the legislature.
J. Finally, the Court does believe, however, that an issue of material fact does exist as to what is owed with regard to another billing entry. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment cannot be fully granted.
Therefore it is,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. The Defendant’s Emergency Motion for Final Summary Judgment is Denied.
2. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment, to the extent consistent with this opinion, is granted, in part.
