19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 164a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1903VANDInsurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer based on lack of standing of plaintiff medical center where insured assigned benefits to individual doctor and record does not contain evidence showing assignment from doctor to medical center or affidavit showing that doctor and medical center are same business entity
SIX DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER, INC., (a/o/a Robin Vandina), Appellant, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case No. CACE09-006772 (26). September 12, 2011. Counsel: Jesse Bernheim, Bernheim & Dolinksy, LLC, for Plaintiff. Matt Hellman, Matt Hellman, P.A., Plantation, for Defendant.
OPINION
(HENNING, Judge. )THIS CAUSE comes before the Court, sitting in its appellate capacity, upon the timely appeal by Appellant, Six Doctors Medical Center, Inc., a/o/a Robin Vandina, of the trial court’s final judgment in favor of State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (herein “State Farm”). Having considered the briefs filed by the parties and being duly advised in the premises and law, the Court dispenses with oral argument and finds and decides as follows:
Background:
State Farm issued a policy of insurance to insured, Robin Vandina, which provided personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. While this policy was in effect, Ms. Vandina was involved in a motor vehicle accident on September 23, 2006. When Ms. Vandina began receiving medical treatment she assigned her rights to PIP benefits to Dr. Paul Fulton, D.C.
Prior to the lawsuit, Six Doctors sent a demand letter to State Farm for Ms. Vandina’s medical bill, reducing the demand by the amount that State Farm had already paid. During the course of the litigation, State Farm admitted it had made payments to Six Doctors. When State Farm refused to pay the remaining amount, Six Doctors filed its complaint against State Farm for breach of contract.
In its amended answer and affirmative defenses, State Farm alleged that: “2. Plaintiff’s claim is barred in that the assignment of benefits fails to assign the provider rights to bring forth suit. The assignment of benefits attached to the complaint direct to Dr. Fulton and not the medical facility. Furthermore, the assignment is assigned strictly to an individual and not the Plaintiff’s Corporation.” On October 16, 2008, State Farm filed it motion for summary judgment arguing, in part, that the assignment to benefits to Dr. Fulton was not an assignment to Six Doctors. Indeed, State Farm alleged that “[n]owhere in the [assignment of benefits] does Claimant purport to assign her right to file suit against Defendant to Plaintiff.”
The trial court granted State Farm’s motion for summary judgment finding that “the assignment is clearly not in the name of Plaintiff.” Thereafter, the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of State Farm reiterating its findings, “Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in that the assignment is clearly not in the name of Plaintiff.”
On appeal, Appellant admits that there is no transcript of the motion for summary judgment hearing for this Court to review. Instead, Six Doctors argues that this is a purely legal issue that is plain on the face of the record, and as such, this Court can review the matter on appeal.
Issues on Appeal:
On appeal, Six Doctors raises three issues arguing the trial court erred because (1) State Farm, itself, did not have standing to challenge the assignment of benefits; (2) Six Doctors is the real party in interest, having standing to sue pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.210; and, (3) State Farm waived its purported “standing” defense by making presuit PIP payments to Six Doctors.
Here, the question is whether the medical provider to whom Ms. Vandina assigned her rights is different than the medical provider plaintiff who brought the action against the insurer. This Court will review the trial court’s order granting summary judgment de novo. Business Specialists, Inc. v. Land & Sea Petroleum, Inc., 25 So. 3d 693, 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D199a].
In advancing the legal arguments of State Farm’s standing, Six Doctors relies upon Digital Medical Diagnostics, v. Allstate Insurance Company, 15 Fla. L. Wkly. Supp. 1147b 11th Judicial Cir. (October 2, 2008). While Digital Medical Diagnostics is not binding on this Court, it is nevertheless distinguishable. Unlike here, in Digital Medical Diagnostics, the Eleventh Judicial Circuit was not asked to review whether the correct Plaintiff brought the civil action against the insurer. Instead, the Digital Medical Diagnostics Court was asked to review the actual terms of assignment, which affected the validity of the assignment, not the identity of the assignee medical provider.
Contrary to Six Doctors’ position, this appeal does not turn on standing. Rather, the issue on appeal is whether the trial court was correct in entering summary judgment in favor of State Farm where a party, other than the assignee, brings the underlying lawsuit.
On the record here, there is no question that Ms. Vandina assigned her rights to Dr. Paul Fulton, D.C., yet the underlying action was brought by Six Doctors Medical Center, Inc. While this issue could have been addressed below, there is nothing in the record below showing any assignment from Dr. Fulton and Six Doctors, and likewise, there is no affidavit from any party showing that Dr. Fulton and Six Doctors are the same entity.
Accordingly, in affirming the trial court’s final judgment here, this Court relies upon the reasoning in Gables Insurance Recovery, Inc. v. Seminole Cas. Ins. Co., 10 So. 3d 1106, 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) [34 Fla. L. Weekly D672b]. In Gables Insurance, the Third District Court of Appeal explained that a discrepancy as to the identity of medical provider could be rectified upon the injured insured’s affidavit which confirms the correct identity of the medical provider. On the record here, it is undisputed that Six Doctors did not provide such an affidavit. While Six Doctors contends that the issues do not require them to bring forth a transcript of the hearing, this Court’s review is limited accordingly. For example, any effort by Six Doctors to clarify its relationship to Dr. Fulton at the hearing is simply not before this Court. Further, there is nothing in the record where the injured insured, Ms. Vandina, submitted an affidavit which identifies Six Doctors Medical Center as the medical provider to whom she was actually assigned her PIP benefits or suggests that Dr. Fulton and Six Doctors are the same business entity. Accordingly, the evidence before the trial court was undisputed that the underlying action was brought by the wrong plaintiff. Upon the record before this Court, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the trial court’s final judgment in favor of the defendant is hereby AFFIRMED;
Appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees is hereby DENIED.
* * *
