25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 183a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2502GAMOInsurance — Personal injury protection — Policy form 9810.7 and amendatory endorsement did not clearly and unambiguously incorporate schedule of maximum charges — Issues of reasonableness, relatedness, and medical necessity remain at issue

JANNIA GAMONEDA, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 13-948 SP 25 (03). April 5, 2017. Patricia Marino-Pedraza, Judge. Counsel: Walter A. Arguelles, Arguelles Legal, P.L., Miami, for Plaintiff. Lowell Karr, Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for Defendant.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT AS TO THE APPLICATION OF THEMEDICARE PART B AND WORKER’SCOMPENSATION FEE SCHEDULES

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment As To The Application Of The Medicare Part B and Worker’s Compensation Fee Schedules on March 22, 2017, and the Court having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise advised in the Premises, it is hereupon:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said Motion be, and the same is hereby GRANTED.

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Application of the Medicare Part B and Workers’ Compensation Fee Schedules is hereby GRANTED.

2. The Court finds as a matter of law that the Defendant’s policy form 9810.7 and amendatory endorsement 6910.3 do not clearly and unambiguously incorporate the schedule of maximum charges as permitted by Fla. Stat. § 627.736.

3. The issues of reasonableness, relatedness, and medical necessity remain at issue.