25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 424a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2505LAROInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Reasonable, related and necessary treatment — Affidavit submitted by insurer in opposition to provider’s motion for summary judgment was sufficient to create genuine issue of material fact as to issues of relatedness and medical necessity only
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. PRO IMAGING, INC. a/a/o Magalie Larose, Appellee. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case No. CACE-15-003522 (AP). L.T. Case No. COCE-12-021758 (53). July 11, 2017. Appeal from the County Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County. Robert W. Lee, Judge. Counsel: Nancy W. Gregoire, Birnbaum, Lippman & Gregoire, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale and Frantz C. Nelson, Vernis & Bowling of Broward, P.A., Hollywood, for Appellant. Todd Landau, Todd Landau P.A., Hallandale Beach, for Appellee.
ON REHEARING
(PER CURIAM) We grant rehearing, vacate the Opinion, filed April 20, 2017, and substitute the following opinion in place of our original opinion.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) appeals the final judgment granted in favor of Pro Imaging, Inc. (“Pro Imaging”). State Farm argues that the trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment in favor of Pro Imaging on the issues of: (1) reasonableness and (2) relatedness and medical necessity. After careful review of the briefs, the record, and applicable law, this Court dispenses with oral argument and finds the following: Dr. Bradley Simon’s affidavit, which State Farm submitted in opposition to Pro Imaging’s motion for summary judgment, created a genuine issue of material fact as to the issues of relatedness and medical necessity only.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the final judgment is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED to the county court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Pro Imaging’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes, is GRANTED, as to the appellate attorney’s fees incurred in defending the county court’s order granting summary judgment on the issue of reasonableness, conditioned on Pro Imaging ultimately prevailing in the case, and State Farm’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 768.79(1), Florida Statutes, is GRANTED, as to the appellate attorney’s fees incurred related to the reversal of the county court’s order granting summary judgment as to the issues of relatedness and medical necessity, conditioned on State Farm prevailing in the proceedings below and the trial court determining that State Farm’s proposal for settlement is valid, enforceable, and made in good faith. (MURPHY, PERLMAN, and LEVENSON, JJ., concur.)
