Case Search

Please select a category.

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, vs. ADVANCED CHIROPRACTIC & MEDICAL CENTER a/a/o Kenson Louis-Jeune, Appellee.

17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 338b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1705LOUIInsurance — Personal injury protection — Explanation of benefits — Failure to provide — Medical provider/assignee has no cause of action against insurer for failure to provide EOB — Discovery — Medical record of nonparties — Error to require insurer’s expert to provide independent medical examination and peer review reports of nonparties and strike expert as witness for refusal to provide reports

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, vs. ADVANCED CHIROPRACTIC & MEDICAL CENTER a/a/o Kenson Louis-Jeune, Appellee. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case Nos. CACE 08-28451 (05), CACE 08-057047. L.C. Case No. COCE 07-020786 (53). February 24, 2010. Richard D. Eade, Judge.

OPINION

(Eade, Judge.) The appellant argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment and awarding nominal damages and reserving entitlement for attorneys’ fees for its failure to provide an explanation of benefits for the PIP benefits claimed by the appellee, as assignee of the appellant’s insured. Since this court is constrained to follow the precedent of the only district court of appeal that has addressed the issue,1 the order on review granting nominal damages and reserving jurisdiction to grant attorneys fees for failure to provide an explanation of benefits must be reversed. See United Automobile Insurance Company v. A 1st Choice Healthcare Systems21 So.3d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (There is no cause of action for violating § 627.736(4)(b) and in turn breaching the insurance contract by failing to provide an explanation of benefits.)

Further, this court is also constrained to find error in requiring the appellant’s expert to provide IME and peer review reports of other insurance claimants and to strike him as a witness when he refused. See Graham v. Dacheikh991 So.2d 932 (Fla. 2d CA 2008).

Accordingly, the orders under review are REVERSED.

__________________

1Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665, 666-667 (Fla. 1992).

Skip to content