Case Search

Please select a category.

CENTRAL CHIROPRACTIC CARE, INC., a Florida Corporation (assignee of Jean-Baptiste, Victor), Plaintiff, v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant.

18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1171a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1811JEAN

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Summary judgment — Partial summary judgment is granted in favor of medical provider on uncontested issues of accident, relatedness of injuries, and necessity of medical services and denied as to contested issue of reasonableness of charges

CENTRAL CHIROPRACTIC CARE, INC., a Florida Corporation (assignee of Jean-Baptiste, Victor), Plaintiff, v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County. Case No. 10-SC-001660. August 15, 2011. Archie B. Hayward, Jr., Judge.

ORDER DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ACCIDENTREASONABLENESS OF CHARGES

THIS CAUSE came before the court for hearing on July 11, 2011 on the Plaintiff’s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment As To Accident, Reasonableness Of Charges, Medical Necessity Of Services, Whether Injuries Were Related To Accident, And Pricing Of Services, and the court, having reviewed the motion, court file, legal authorities and having heard argument of counsel, finds as follows:

Factual Background: This is a suit for Breach of Contract for failure to pay P.I.P. benefits. The Plaintiff filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the issues of: 1) Accident, 2) Reasonableness of the Charges, 3) Medical Necessity of the Services, 4) and Relatedness of the Injuries to the Accident. Defendant did not challenge the issues of: 1) Accident, 3) Medical Necessity of the Services, 4) and Relatedness of the Injuries to the Accident. Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment As To Accident, Medical Necessity Of Services, Whether Injuries Were Related To Accident is GRANTED. The Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED without prejudice as to Reasonableness of Charges.

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s motion as to Reasonableness of Charges is DENIED without prejudice.

Skip to content