Case Search

Please select a category.

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Appellant, vs. ISOT MEDICAL CENTER, a/a/o Julian Padron, Appellee.

18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 498a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1806PADR

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Summary judgment — Opposing affidavit — Error to strike peer review report filed in opposition to summary judgment on grounds that report was not procured pursuant to independent medical examination

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Appellant, vs. ISOT MEDICAL CENTER, a/a/o Julian Padron, Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 09-335 AP. L.T. Case No. 03-011212 SP 05. February 25, 2011. An appeal from a decision by the County Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Wendell M. Graham, Judge. Counsel: Michael J. Neimand, United Automobile Insurance Company, Office of the General Counsel, for Appellant. Sadie E. Naveo, Sadie E. Naveo, P.A. and Stuart Yanofsky, Stuart B. Yanofsky, P.A., for Appellee.

(Before BROWN, SCHUMACHER, and LANGER, JJ.)

(PER CURIAM.) A summary judgment decision is reviewed de novo by this Court. Major League Baseball v. Morsani790 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 2001) [26 Fla. L. Weekly S465a].

The trial court erred by striking Appellant’s peer review report. The trial court based its decision on the fact that the Appellant’s peer review report was not procured pursuant to an IME. This is not a requirement in this Appellate District. United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Metro. Injury & Rehab. Ctr.16 So. 3d 897, 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) [34 Fla. L. Weekly D1516a]. Furthermore, a peer review report and\or evidence that a bill or treatment was not reasonable, related, or necessary may be produced by an insurer at any time after the denial of benefits pursuant to section 627.736(4)(b), Florida Statutes. United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Santa Fe Med. Ctr.21 So. 3d 60, 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) [34 Fla. L. Weekly D2051b].

Reversal of the underlying judgment requires reversal of any award of attorney’s fees and costs. S & I Invs. v. Payless Flea Mkt., Inc.40 So. 3d 48, 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D1451a]; Amorello v. Tauck824 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) [27 Fla. L. Weekly D1721c]; Marty v. Bainter727 So. 2d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) [24 Fla. L. Weekly D695a].

REVERSED and REMANDED.

Skip to content