24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 165a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2402ASSAInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Motion for relief from erroneous findings — Trial court will issue amended order to correct its erroneous assumption that medical providers stipulated that insurers properly elected to limit reimbursement to permissive statutory fee schedule when litigating insurers’ authorization to apply Medicare Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction to providers’ bills, but rejects assertions of possible fraud on court
SOCC, P.L., D/B/A SOUTH ORANGE WELLNESS & INJURY CENTER, a/a/o YOUSSEF ASSAL, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 1 5-CC-015856 (M). Consolidated with the following Div. M cases for the purposes set forth in the Court’s October 13, 2015 Order: 15-CC-016491, 15-CC-016733, 15-CC-016495, 15-CC-017630, 15-CC-016527, 15-CC-018024, 15-CC-016529, 15-CC-018113, 15-CC-016536, 15-CC-019107, 15-CC-016537, 15-CC-019320, 15-CC-024758, 15-CC-024633. April 18, 2016. Honorable Herbert Berkowitz, Judge.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE,TO VACATE, AND/OR FOR OTHER RELIEF FROMERRONEOUS FINDINGS IN COURT’S ORDER AND/ORTO PREVENT FRAUD UPON THE COURT
THIS MATTER, came on to be heard on March 24, 2016 upon the “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike, To Vacate, And/or for Other Relief from Erroneous Findings in Court’s Order, And/or to Prevent Fraud Upon the Court.” Both sides were represented by counsel, and the Court after hearing respective arguments and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds as follows:
1. With regard to Plaintiffs’ assertions of possible fraud having been or, which in the future, may be perpetrated on the Court by the Defendant, the Court does not find that the Defendant had “sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim of defense” as argued at page 11 of Plaintiffs’ Motion.
2. With regard to the request “for other relief from erroneous findings in the Court’s Order” of January 21, 2016, the Court does agree with Plaintiffs that the Court did erroneously assume that the Plaintiffs stipulated to the Insurance Companies’ proper election of the permissive fee schedule. The record does not support the Court’s reference to such a stipulation, and consequently amends its January 21, 2016 Order. Said Amended Order Granting Insurance Companies’ Motion for Final Summary Judgment Regarding Multiple Procedure Payment Reductions will be entered by this Court by separate Order.
It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion be Denied in Part and Granted in Part, consistent with the findings herein stated.
