17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 163a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1703ESCO

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Withdrawal of benefits — Valid report for withdrawal of PIP benefits does not have to be issued by physician who has personally examined insured; it may be based on reporting physician’s review of examination and treatment records of insured

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, vs. EDUARDO J. GARRIDO, D.C., P.A., a/a/o JORGE ESCOTO, Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 08-486 AP. L.C. Case No. 06-12839 SP 25 (3). January 6, 2010. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County. Counsel: Michael J. Neimand, Office of the General Counsel, United Automobile Insurance Company, for Appellant. Christian Carrazana, Panter, Panter, Somepedro, P.A., for Appellee.

(Before KORVICK, FARINA, AND MANNO SCHURR, JJ.)

CONFESSION OF ERROR

(PER CURIAM.) Appellant United Automobile Insurance Company appeals an adverse ruling made against it by the trial court concerning the admission and/or consideration of their expert’s report by the trial court. Now, Appellee Eduardo J. Garrido, D.C. P.A., files a confession of error on the basis of United Automobile Insurance Company v. Metro Injury & Rehab Center, 16 So. 3d 897, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D1516a (Fla. July 29, 2009).

In that decision, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a grant of summary judgment by the trial court, which had held that an insurer’s expert report was not a valid peer review report under sec. 627.736(7)(a), Fla. Stat.(2005), because it was neither based upon nor factually supported by an independent medical examination. In clarifying the law, the Court held that to constitute a “valid report” under sec. 627.736(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005), the physician who issues the report must be a physician who examines the insured, or excluding the treating physician, a physician who reviews the examination and treatment records of the insured. The reporting physician does not have to have personally conducted a physical examination of the insured. See United Auto at900, affirming holding in United Automobile Insurance Company v. Bermudez, 980 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

As such, the trial court erred in its ruling and this matter is reversed and remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this ruling.