26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 674b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2608YAPInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Reasonableness of charges — Summary judgment entered in favor of insurer
BEHNAM MYERS, D.O., P.A. a/a/o Julie Yap, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. COCE-15005477. Division 54. October 10, 2018. [Final Judgment November 1, 2018]. Betsy Benson for Florence Taylor Barner, Judges. Counsel: Mark D. Bartle, Roig Lawyers, Deerfield Beach, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDMENT AS TO THEMEDICAL CHARGES BEING REASONABLE ANDGRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR FINALSUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW
These Motions came before the Court for hearing on September 5th, 2018. The court, having heard argument of counsel, having reviewed the motions and exhibits in support of and in opposition to the motions, having reviewed the relevant case law, and otherwise being fully advised in the premises, finds as follows:
The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment was supported by the provider’s deposition taken on October 24th, 2016. Though plaintiff urges the court to consider the Answers to Interrogatories filed in this matter, those documents were not provided pursuant to a Notice of Intent to Rely or Notice of Filing as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Figler Family Chiropractic 189 So.3d 970 (Fla. 4th DCA, 2016) [41 Fla. L. Weekly D805b]. Were these documents admissible, the court finds that the interrogatories, along with the motion and other supporting evidence, fail to establish that Plaintiff ‘is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ Smith v. Shelton, 970 So. 2d 450, 451 (Fla. 4th DCA, 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly D2873a], Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.510.
Based on the evidence presented, the Defendant’s Motion For Final Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law is GRANTED. Order Granting Defendant’s Amended Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Coding of Services, (Case No. COCE16- 010768, Fla. Broward County, J. Lee, Aug. 9th, 2018).
__________________FINAL JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court for hearing on September 5, 2018 on Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Medical Charges Being Reasonable, the Court having reviewed the Motions and supporting affidavits; the entire Court file; and reviewing the relevant legal authorities; having heard arguments by Counsel; having made a thorough review of the matters filed on record; and having been otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereupon,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment was supported by the provider’s deposition taken on October 24t\ 2016. Though plaintiff urges the court to consider the Answers to Interrogatories filed in this matter, those documents were not provided pursuant to a Notice of Intent to Rely or Notice of Filing as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Figler Family Chiropractic 189 So.3d 970 (Fla. 4th DCA, 2016) [41 Fla. L. Weekly D805b]. Were these documents admissible, the court finds that the interrogatories, along with the motion and other supporting evidence, fail to establish that Plaintiff ‘is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ Smith v. Shelton, 970 So. 2d 450, 451 (Fla. 4th DCA, 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly D2873a], Fla,. R. Civ, Pro. 1.510.
Based on the evidence presented, the Defendant’s Motion For Final Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law is GRANTED. Order Granting Defendant’s Amended Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Coding of Services, Case No. COCE 16-010768, Fla. Broward County, J. Lee, Aug. 9th, 2018).
Based upon the foregoing, Final Judgment is hereby entered on behalf of Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The Plaintiff, Behnam Myers, D.O., P.A. (a/a/o Julie Yap), shall take nothing by this action and the Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, shall go hence without a day. The Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of determining any motion by the Defendant to tax attorney’s fees and costs.
