20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 587a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2006NASSInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — MRI — Summary judgment is entered in favor of medical provider where affidavit submitted by provider establishes reasonableness of charge for MRI and opposing affidavit of insurer’s adjuster containing conclusory statement that charge was not reasonable is contradicted by adjuster’s admission at deposition that charge was within range of reasonable charges
HALLANDALE OPEN MRI, LLC., as assignee of Mustafa Nassar, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 11-07801 CONO 73. May 3, 2012. Steven P. Deluca, Judge. Counsel: Cris Evan Boyar, for Plaintiff. Sean Sweeney, for Defendant.
[Editor’s note: Final judgment affirmed at FLWSUPP2208NASS]
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION
This cause came before the court, on March 28, 2102, after due notice to the parties, on plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition on the issue of the reasonableness of the charge of the MRI bill which is the subject of this action. The amount in controversy is $407.26. After review of the pleadings, evidence, the stipulation that medical necessity and related was not an issue in the case and the rest of the record, and after hearing argument of counsel for the parties, and pursuant to Fla. R. Sm. Cl. 7.135 which was reserved on February 22, 2012, the court finds no triable issue and hereby grants summary disposition in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
Hallandale Open MRI (Open MRI), as assignee of Mustafa Nassar, sued United Automobile Insurance Company (United Auto) for breach of a contract of personal injury protection benefits under the Florida No Fault law. United offered a reduced amount which was not accepted by Open MR1 who, after serving a demand letter for the difference, sued United Auto for breach.
Hallandale moved for partial summary disposition accompanied by an affidavit of Belkys Wilson Torres, Vice President of Palms MRI (a non party), who, based on substantial showing, avers that the amount of Plaintiff’s charge is reasonable. Hallandale also filed the deposition of United Auto’s adjuster, Juan Reyes, taken on March 7, 2012. The court finds that Open MRI met its burden of establishing the reasonableness of the MRI charge.
In opposition to Open MRI’s motion, United Auto filed the affidavit of its adjuster, Juan Reyes, executed on March 23, 2012, in which Reyes avers that Open MRI’s charges are “not reasonable.” However, in his deposition, Reyes admitted that the charges were within the range of reasonable charges.
The court finds United Auto did not meet its burden to establish a genuine triable issue as to the reasonableness of the charge for the MRI. The affidavit of Reyes is self-serving and conclusory and lacks foundation or basis for his opinion as to the amount of what he considers to be a reasonable charge.
Further, the affidavit is inconsistent with his rater deposition, at page 9, in which Reyes admits that Plaintiff’s charge for the MRI of $1650 was within the range of what other MRI providers charge which is between $1650 to $2300. Reyes was not qualified or offered as an expert witness. Other than the conclusion of his affidavit that Open MRI’s charge was not reasonable, there is no competent admissible evidence to create a triable issue that the charge was unreasonable.
Florida Small Claims Rule 7.135 “requires the trial court, at pretrial conference or at any subsequent hearing, to summarily dispose of an action if there is no triable issue.” Duanne Eady v. Affordable Realty and Property Management, 18 Fla. Law Weekly Supp. 7a (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct., October 27, 2010).
Accordingly, Hallandale Open MRI’s motion for summary disposition is granted and Plaintiff shall submit a judgment to be entered against the Defendant United Automobile Insurance Company. The court reserves jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 627.428 and taxable costs to the Plaintiff.
* * *
