21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 565a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2106MITCInsurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Medical provider was not required to send additional demand letter when seeking to amend complaint to add additional dates of service
NEUROLOGY PARTNERS, P.A., As assignee of TORLUND MITCHELL, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Small Claims Court. Case No. 16-2013-SC-001556, Division J. February 10, 2014. Honorable Eleni Derke, Judge. Counsel: D. Scott Craig and Ellis Peetluk, Jacksonville, for Plaintiff. James C. Rinaman III, Jacksonville, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’SMOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
THIS CAUSE, having come before this Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint, and the Court having been otherwise advised, it is hereby:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1) Plaintiff filed this No-Fault benefits lawsuit on April 1, 2013. The initial Complaint sought payment of billing for dates of treatment January 5, 2012 through June 11, 2012. Prior to filing the lawsuit, Plaintiff submitted to Defendant a presuit demand letter, in compliance with Florida Statute §627.736(10).
2) Plaintiff continued to treat its patient, Torlund Mitchell. On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend Complaint, to include additional charges for unpaid No-Fault Benefits for dates of service not included in the initial Complaint.
3) Defendant objected to Plaintiff’s Motion, and argued that Plaintiff must first submit a demand letter, as required by Florida Statute §627.736(10). Plaintiff argued that the statute did not require a subsequent demand letter, in order to amend its Complaint.
4) Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190, titled “Amended And Supplemental Pleadings” requires that when a party files a motion to amend a pleading, leave of court shall be given freely when justice so requires.
5) Defendant did not show that it would be prejudiced by Plaintiff’s amending of the Complaint, nor that Plaintiff’s amendment would be fruitless. Instead, Defendant argued only that the language of Florida Statute §627.736(10) mandates that Plaintiff must submit a subsequent demand letter in order to amend an existing Complaint.
6) This court has read and carefully considered the language of the statute. There is no language in Florida Statute §627.736(10), nor anywhere in the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law addressing the amendment of an existing action. Instead, the statute states only that “as a condition precedent to filing any action for benefits, written notice of an intent to initiate litigation must be provided to the insurer. . .” Amending an existing Complaint is not equivalent to “filing any action for benefits”. Once an action seeking No-Fault Benefits is filed, and the statutory condition precedent to filing the suit is met, it is unnecessary to send further demand letters, when a plaintiff is simply amending the amount of damages in the Complaint.
7) The bills in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint were denied by Defendant, because of Defendant’s position that that the treatment was not reasonable, necessary, and related to the accident. The bills sought in Plaintiff’s initial Complaint were denied for the same reason, based on the same physician’s report obtained by Defendant. This court finds that Defendant has been afforded more than ample opportunity to pay the bills sought in Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended Complaint. As such, the legislative purpose of the statute, to provide insurers with an adequate opportunity to pay the bills in dispute and avoid litigation, has been met in this case.
8) If medical providers filing No-Fault benefits suits were to be required to submit a demand letter each and every time its patient sees the doctor in order to amend its Complaint, this would frustrate the purpose of the Florida No-Fault Law, which is to provide “swift and virtually automatic payment so that the injured insured may get on with his life without undue financial interruption.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067, 1077 (Fla. 2006) [31 Fla. L. Weekly S358a].
9) Plaintiffs Motion is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is deemed filed as of the date of this Order.
* * *
