19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1023b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1912HOLLInsurance — Personal injury protection — Affirmative defenses — Motion to strike affirmative defenses is denied where defenses are consistent with amended admissions
PONTE VEDRA CHIROPRACTIC & PHYSICAL THERAPY, (A/A/O HELEN HOLLIS), Plaintiff, vs. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for St. Johns County, Civil Division. Case No. SP-10-0450-66. June 22, 2012, nunc pro tunc June 6, 2012. Charles J. Tinlin, Judge. Counsel: David S. Craig, for Plaintiff. David R. Hwalek, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKEDEFENDANT’S THIRD, FOURTH ANDSIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
THIS MATTER, having come before this Honorable Court on June 6, 2012, upon Defendant’s Motion to Amend Admissions. This Court being otherwise advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows,
1. The Plaintiff filed suit for personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits on March 2, 2010.
2. As this case proceeded under Florida Small Claims Rules, the Defendant did not file an answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
3. On January 4, 2012, new counsel for the Defendant filed its Notice of Appearance.
4. Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend its Complaint for Damages to add an action for declaratory judgment, which was granted on March 16, 2012.
5. On or about April 11, 2012 the Defendant timely filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses in response to the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. The addition of the declaratory judgment action automatically invoked the application of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
6. Plaintiff filed three separate motions to strike Defendant’s Third, Fourth, and Sixth Affirmative Defenses.
7. A hearing was held on June 6, 2012 on all three motions filed by Plaintiff and on Defendant’s Motions to Amend Admissions.
8. The Court granted Defendant’s Motions to Amend its Admissions number 6 and number 17 regarding Plaintiff’s standing, which are consistent with Defendant’s Third, and Fourth Affirmative Defenses.
9. Defendant’s Sixth Affirmative Defense raises the reasonableness of the Plaintiff’s charge for CPT Code 99204 which yields a potentially reasonable higher reimbursement rate than the Defendant’s adjustment to CPT Code 99203. Additionally, the parties’ Joint Stipulation filed on or about September 9, 2011 states that “[t]he disputed issues in this case include whether Plaintiff’s billing for these dates has been paid at a reasonable and permissible rate by Defendant.”
10. Therefore, the amendment to Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions now deny that Plaintiff possessed legal standing to contest the medical bills at issue, and also denies that Plaintiff’s presuit demand letter substantially complied with Florida No-Fault law, satisfying the statutory condition precedent to file suit. Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
11. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Third Affirmative Defense, which states that Plaintiff cannot maintain a lawsuit as it is not a registered corporation, limited liability company or partnership, nor is it a registered fictitious name pursuant to Florida Statute §865.09 is denied.
12. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Fourth Affirmative Defense, which states that Plaintiff’s assignment of benefits is invalid and Plaintiff has no standing is denied.
13. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Sixth Affirmative Defense, which states that Plaintiff failed to use the correct CPT code (billed code 99204) for date of service 11/09/2009 is denied.
* * *
