17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 855b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1709HARR
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — MRI — Insurer’s motion for summary judgment on ground that provider failed to render services/engaged in illegal patient broker and/or fee splitting and billed in excess of amounts permitted by statute denied
STAR IMAGING, LLC, a/a/o Elliot Harris, Plaintiff(s), vs. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Defendant(s). County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 08-4557-SP-26. March 15, 2010. Patricia Marino-Pedraza, Judge. Counsel: Martin Berger, for Plaintiff. Reuven Herssein, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the 5th day of March, 2010 on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment regarding failure to render services/engaging in illegal patient brokering and/or fee splitting, Box 31, and billing in excess of amounts permitted pursuant to Florida Statute 627.736(5)(b)(5), and upon argument of counsel, review of the record evidence, and case law, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. In support of its Motion, the Defendant filed the deposition transcript of Cecilia Perez who stated both the technician who performed the MRI as well as the Physician who interpreted the MRI were paid as independent contractors, The Defendant argues that the fact are analogous to the facts in Prosper Diagnostics Centers, Inc., (a/a/o Giovan Mayonshi) v. Allstate Insurance Company, 964 So.2d 763 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly D2069a]. In Prosper, the court held that the facility, who entered into a lease agreement with an MRI facility to perform MRI’s, failed to render any services and further found that the lease agreement consisted of fee splitting and patient brokering in violation of Florida Statute 817.505. This Court finds the facts of the case at bar to be distinguishable. Pursuant to the deposition transcript of Cecelia Perez, in response to the question “what service Star Imaging performed in this case?”, Ms. Perez responded “Everything. We provided the machine. We provided the technician and we provided the radiologist, everything”. Based upon the record evidence and the language of the statute itself, the Court denies Summary Judgment as to the issue of failure to render services/engaging in illegal patient brokering and/or fee splitting.
2. The Court denies Defendant’s Motion as to Box 31 due to the rationale stated in this Court’s Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Box 31 [Editor’s note: Published in this issue at 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 855a].
3. The Court additionally denies Summary Judgment as to billing in excess based upon State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. One Stop Medical Inc., a/a/o Tandy McNealy, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1101b (Fla. 17th Cir. App. 2007); see also United Automobile Ins, Co. v. A-1 Mobile MRI, Inc. a/a/o Mabel Padilla, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 548b (Fla. 17th Cir. App. 2005).
