22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 123a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2201IRVIInsurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — For purposes of motion to dismiss, in which defendant maintained that assignment of benefits did not actually assign benefits to plaintiff, court must accept as true the allegations in complaint that there was an equitable assignment to the named plaintiff
INTERNAL MEDICINE OF VERANDA PARK, P.A., a Florida Corporation (assignee of Irving, Errol), Plaintiff, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 2013-SC-8715-O. July 16, 2014. Adam McGinnis, Judge. Counsel: Russel Lazega, Florida Insurance Advocates, Dania Beach, for Plaintiff.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS CAUSE having come before this Court for hearing on May 28, 2014 on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and the Court, having reviewed the motion, applicable legal authority and heard argument by counsel, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Factual Background
This is a PIP case concerning payment for medical services Plaintiff rendered to the Defendant’s insured, Errol Irving (hereafter “patient”). Plaintiff brings this lawsuit based upon an assignment of benefits from the patient. Defendant moves to dismiss the suit for lack of standing alleging that the assignment of benefits does not assign benefits to the Plaintiff.
The assignment of benefits in dispute provides in pertinent part:
[t]he undersigned hereby assigns to the physician or facility named above the following rights, power and authority:
The assignment in dispute also provides in pertinent part:
CONSENT FOR TREATMENT: The undersigned hereby consents to the provision of examination, fitness evaluations, treatments, therapies, medical and laboratory procedures, and drugs and supplies to the patient as ordered by the patient’s health care provider Loakhnauth Ramkishun, M.D., their physicians, nurse practitioners, . . .
The Defendant maintains that the assignment of benefits does not assign benefits to the Plaintiff and assigns benefits to Loakhnauth Ramkishun, M.D. individually because the Plaintiff’s name is not listed “above” the consent for treatment clause as indicated and names the treating physician, Loakhnauth Ramkishun, M.D. within the consent to treat section.
Legal Conclusion
This Court respectfully denies the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. “For purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss, the trial court may look no further than the four corners of the complaint, and all allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true.” Nevitt v. Bonomo, 53 So.3d 1078, 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D2871a]. In this case, Paragraph 7 of the Complaint pleads that there was an equitable assignment from the patient to the named Plaintiff and this Court much accept these allegations as true for purposes of the Defendant’s motion. Defendant has 20 days from the date of this Order to file an Answer. Defendant has 30 days from the date of this Order to file responses to any discovery.
* * *
