23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 557b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2306RAYMInsurance — Personal injury protection — Demand letter — Medical provider is not required to send additional demand letter when seeking to amend complaint to add additional dates of service
FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC WORKS, INC., as assignee of Maria Raymond, Plaintiff, vs. SOUTHERN-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 2014-SC-001891-O. September 24, 2015. Honorable Jeanette Dejuras Bigney, Judge. Counsel: Marc R. Williams, Johnson & Williams, P.A., Orlando, for Plaintiff. Adam C. Muth, Smith, Rolfes & Skavdahl Company, L.P.A., Orlando, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’SMOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
THIS MATTER having come before this Court on September 10, 2015, and this Court having heard arguments of counsel on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiff filed this No-Fault benefits lawsuit on February 20, 2014. 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. On May 5, 2015, 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 argued 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. The bills in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint were denied by Defendant, because of Defendant’s position 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.
7. The Court is persuaded by Neurology Partners, P.A. as assignee of Torlund Mitchell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 565a (Fla. Duval Cty. Ct. 2014).
8. Plaintiffs Motion is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is deemed filed as of the date of this Order. Defendant shall have twenty (20) days from September 10, 2015 to file its response.
