20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 894a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2009RIVEInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Error to enter summary judgment regarding relatedness and medical necessity of treatment where genuine issues of material fact exist
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. PHOENIX MEDICAL SERVICES, a/a/o CATALINA D. RIVERA, Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami Dade County. Case No. 12-257AP. L.T. Case No. 2007-005843 CC 26. June 19, 2013. Counsel: Kimberly A. Hill, for Appellant. David B. Parula, for Appellee.
(Before MURPHY, MIRANDA, and RODRIGUEZ-CHOMAT, JJ.)
(MURPHY, Judge.) The case comes to this Appellate Court on appeal of an order granting summary judgment. Claimant Catalina Rivera, insured by Appellant/Defendant State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company, reported being involved in an automobile accident as a passenger on February 12, 2006. Claimant assigned PIP benefits to Appellee/Plaintiff Phoenix Medical Services on April 4, 2006, and received treatment from Appellee from April 4 through June 1, 2006. Appellant declined to pay the claims submitted by Appellee, and Appellee filed a complaint on October 15, 2007. Appellant asserted in its Answer that the bills were not reasonable, related, or necessary.
Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment on February 2, 2009, asserting that the treatment provided to Claimant was reasonable, related, and necessary, and submitted a supporting affidavit from its medical expert, Dr. Suarez. Appellant filed a response in opposition and attached an affidavit from its medical expert, Dr. Gentile. The trial court held a hearing on November 17, 2010 and granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment for relatedness and medical necessity. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for rehearing and submitted a second affidavit from Dr. Gentile. The trial court granted the motion for rehearing, but ultimately upheld its original ruling. The trial court entered final judgment for Phoenix on June 25, 2012. Appellant now appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment regarding relatedness and medical necessity.
Appellee urges the Court to apply an “abuse of discretion” standard of review to the instant case, arguing that the trial court used its discretion to determine that the affidavits from Dr. Gentile were inadmissible. We disagree, as the record does not reflect that the trial court based its ruling on the competence or admissibility of Dr. Gentile’s affidavits, and there is no indication that the trial court deemed the affidavits inadmissible. Accordingly, this Court will apply the standard de novo review for summary judgment orders.
On de novo review of an order granting summary judgment, this Court is required to view the evidence, including any supporting affidavits, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Daneri v. BCRE Brickell, LLC, 79 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) [37 Fla. L. Weekly D76a]; Sierra v. Shevin, 767 So. 2d 524, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D1605a]. “[T]he appellate court must determine: (1) whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, and (2) whether the trial court applied the correct rule of law. See State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Hyma Medical Center, Inc., 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 120a (11th Jud. Cir. Oct. 18, 2012) (citing Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly S390a]). Summary judgment should only be granted if the moving party conclusively demonstrates the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, with all reasonable inference drawn in favor of the non-moving party. Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666, 668 (Fla. 1985).
To satisfy this standard, the moving party has the initial burden to offer sufficient admissible evidence to support its claim of the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact. See DeMesme v. Stephenson, 498 So. 2d 673, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). If the moving party does not meet this initial burden, summary judgment should be denied. Id. If the moving party meets this initial burden, however, the opposing party must demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue either by countervailing evidence or justifiable inferences from the facts presented. Id. “[I]f the record reflects the existence of any issue of material fact, or the possibility of any issue, or if the record raises even the slightest doubt that an issue might exist, summary judgment is improper.” Pennco, Inc. v. Meritor Sav., F.A., 617 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
Upon review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, this Court finds that the trial court incorrectly granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment regarding relatedness and medical necessity. Rather, the record reflects the existence of genuine issues of material fact regarding relatedness and medical necessity that must be resolved by the trier of fact.
THEREFORE, the trial court order granting summary judgment on relatedness and medical necessity is hereby REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. (MIRANDA and RODRIGUEZ-CHOMAT, JJ., concur.)
* * *
