24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 237b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2403ESQUInsurance — Personal injury protection — Reasonableness of charges — Evidence — Expert — Plaintiff’s amended motion to strike affidavit of defendant’s expert regarding reasonableness of charges denied — Discussion of factors underlying court’s decision
MILLENNIUM RADIOLOGY, LLC, a/a/o Henry Esquivel, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Civil Division. Case No. 12-20656 SP 25 (04). April 27, 2016. Carlos Guzman, Judge. Counsel: Kevin Whitehead, for Plaintiff. Orlando Ortiz and Camille A. White, for Defendant.ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTIONTO STRIKE AFFIDAVIT OF EDWARD A. DAUER M.D.
This matter having come before the Court on this 17th day of February 2016 on the Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Strike the affidavit of Edward A. Dauer, M.D., and after hearing live testimony from Dr. Dauer, having considered the argument of counsel present, having reviewed all the applicable documents and exhibits in the Court file, and those which were presented to the Court at the hearing by the attorneys, after having reviewed all the case law provided by the attorneys and being fully advised of the premises thereof, the Court finds as follows:
In order for expert testimony to be deemed admissible, the testimony must comply with the amendments to the Evidence Code wherein the legislature adopted the Federal Daubert standard. See §90.702, Fla. Stat. (2015); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The Evidence Code provides that an expert may only testify if:
(1) The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data;
(2) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(3) The witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
Dr. Dauer testified that in his professional practice as a medical doctor over the last 38 years, he has treated patients injured in automobile accidents and reviewed and evaluated medical records and bills for patients who were injured in automobile accidents and received medical treatment and diagnostic studies. Dr. Dauer currently owns, operates and manages a diagnostic facility which has been continuously supplying radiology services since 1983 at the same location. As such, Dr. Dauer is familiar with the costs associated with running a diagnostic center, as well as the usual and customary charges and reimbursement amounts for CT scans performed at his facility and has personal knowledge and expertise regarding the range and rate of charges and reimbursement amounts for medical care in the community, including the range and rate of charges and reimbursement amounts for radiological services provided in the area to patients by credentialed and experienced diagnostic centers and hospitals in South Florida including Broward and Miami-Dade County which is consistent with the methodology enumerated in § 627.736(5)(a)(1), Fla. Stat..
Based on facts and data provided by Dr. Dauer during his testimony, this court finds that Dr. Dauer sufficiently explained how and why his experiences lead to his ultimate opinion. As such, Dr. Dauer is qualified to testify competently regarding matters he intends to address, i.e. reasonableness of charges.
It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Strike the affidavit of Edward A. Dauer, M.D., is hereby DENIED.
