25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 149a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2502MCNUInsurance — Small claims — Summary disposition — Circuit court recedes from prior decision holding that trial judge is permitted to reweigh evidence in support of or in opposition to motion for summary disposition under rule 7.135 and that trial court’s decision on motion for summary disposition is reviewed by appellate panel under abuse of discretion standard — De novo standard of review applies to orders on motions for summary disposition — Summary disposition in favor of medical provider is affirmed
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. MARGATE PAIN AND REHABILITATION, INC., a/a/o Shadae McNutt, Appellee. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case No. CACE 14-010367 (AP). L.T. Case No. COCE 13-012343. March 31, 2017. Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Robert W. Lee, Judge. Counsel: Daniel M. Schwarz, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for Appellant. Majid Voussoughi, Majid Voussoughi, P.A., Miami, and Stuart L. Koenigsberg, A Able Advocates — Stuart L. Koenigsberg, P.A., Miami, for Appellee.
OPINION
(PER CURIAM.) Having carefully reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, this Court dispenses with oral argument, and decides that the final judgment in favor of Margate Pain and Rehabilitation, Inc. should be affirmed as set forth below.
We write to address whether the trial court may weigh evidence under Florida Small Claims Rule 7.135. See Fla. Sm. Cl. R. 7.135. In United Automobile Insurance Company v. Hallandale Open MRI, LLC, the fourth District Court of Appeal denied the petition for writ of certiorari without addressing this issue, but did question the statement that Florida Small Claims Rule 7.135 “permits a trial judge to weigh the evidence submitted by the parties in support of and in opposition to summary disposition,” which was made by a pervious panel of this Court. United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hallandale Open MRI, LLC, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 399d (Fla. 17th Cir. Dec. 11, 2013); see United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hallandale Open MRI, LLC, 145 So. 3d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) [39 Fla. L. Weekly D1883c]. That panel went on to hold that a trial court’s decision upon summary disposition is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. See United Auto. Ins. Co., 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 399d (Fla. 17th Cir. Dec. 11, 2013).
We do not believe a trial judge is permitted to weigh the evidence under Florida Small Claims rule 7.135. In addition, we believe that a de novo standard of review applies to orders on motions for summary disposition. To that limited extent, we recede from the decision of a previous panel of this Court in United Automobile Insurance Company v. Hallandale Open MRI, LLC, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 399d (Fla. 17th Cir. Dec. 11, 2013).
Notwithstanding, we affirm. We find that Margate Pain and Rehabilitation, Inc. made a prima facie showing as to the reasonableness of its charges. And, State Farm did not satisfy its burden to show a triable issue related to the reasonableness of the charges. According,
The final judgment in favor of Margate Pain and Rehabilitation, Inc. is hereby AFFIRMED. Appellant’s Motion for Appellate Attorney’s Fees is hereby DENIED. Appellee’s Motion for Appellate Attorney’s Fees is hereby GRANTED with the amount to be determined by the county court upon remand. (BOWMAN, POWELL and HAURY, JJ., concur.)
