16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 213b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 163DEREN
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Withdrawal of benefits — Reasonable proof — Where trial court was correct in not admitting peer review report, albeit for wrong reasons, decision is upheld
QUASHED. 35 Fla. L. Weekly D201a.
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, vs. PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a/a/o Santos Silva de Rendon, Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case Nos. 07-540 AP and 08-022 AP (Consolidated). L.T. Case No. 06-16415 CC 25. January 23, 2009. An appeal from a decision of the Miami-Dade County Court. Counsel: Lara J. Edelstein, for Petitioner. Jose R. Iglesia and Chelin Vazquez Sampedro, for Appellee.
(Before LEDERMAN, COHEN, and EIG, JJ.)
(PER CURIAM.) Appellant United Automobile Insurance Company (“United Auto” or the “insurer”) contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the Appellee/Defendant below, Professional Medical Group, Inc. (“Professional” or the “provider”) based on the Court’s failure to consider the peer review affidavit and report submitted by the insurer. The trial court concluded that: (1) the report was not a valid medical report since the peer review was not accompanied by an independent medical examination or a physical examination, but instead relied solely on treatment records of the Plaintiff’s treating doctor; (2) the report was not obtained within thirty days of receipt of the medical bills1; and (3) the report did not have the referenced documents attached2. This appeal followed.
We conclude that the trial court made the right ruling for the wrong reason. See D.R. Horton, Inc.-Jacksonville v. Peyton, 959 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“When the trial court reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons, that decision will be upheld on appeal if there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record”.)
While not a District Court appellate decision, we rely on the well written opinion by Judge Kevin Emas in United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Total Rehab Medical Center, an Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court Appellate opinion issued on November 13, 2008. In so doing, we affirm the trial court’s summary judgment. Since the trial court was correct in not admitting the affidavit of Dr. Goldberg — as it was not a valid report — we need not address the other arguments made by United Auto.
Appellee Professional Medical Group should be awarded appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to §627.428, Fla. Stat., as the prevailing party on this appeal. (LEDERMAN and EIG, JJ., concur.)
__________________
1The trial court misapplied the 30 day requirement to §627.736(7)(a). The thirty day requirement is relevant only to §627.736(4)(b). See United Auto Ins. Co. v. Bermudez, 950 So. 2d 1213, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Even so, failure to pay PIP benefits within 30 days subjects an insurer to statutory penalties but does not deprive the insurer of its right to contest payment. The statutory penalties of ten percent interest and attorney’s fees are the only penalties for an “overdue” claim. United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 808 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 2001).
2The provider’s argument that the affidavit of Dr. Goldberg did not comply with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 because the referenced documents were not attached to the affidavit is without merit. The supporting documents, such as the medical records, the x-rays, etc., were all identified in the affidavit as specifically having been reviewed by the doctor. They did not have to be physically attached to the affidavit. They were all a part of the trial court record as they had been provided to the insurer by the provider in discovery in response to the request to produce. See Crovella v. Cochrane, 102 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958).
