26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 139a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2602PRADInsurance — Personal injury protection — Declaratory action — Motion for reconsideration of order denying motion to dismiss count of complaint that seeks declaratory relief regarding unpaid portion of PIP claims is denied where challenged order was agreed to between parties, and insurer has failed to show that order was entered based on error, coercion or injustice — Moreover, fact that medical provider has another remedy at law does not preclude judgment for declaratory relief
PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL BUILDING GROUP, INC., a/a/o Manuel Prado, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County. Case No. 14-11280 SP 25 (01). April 2, 2018. Linda Diaz, Judge. Counsel: Walter A. Arguelles, Arguelles Legal, P.L., Miami, for Plaintiff. Michael Eglinton, Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FORRECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’SORDER DATED FEBRUARY 03, 2016
THIS CAUSE, having come before the Court on March 15, 2018, upon Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Dated February 03, 2016, and the Court having heard argument of counsel, the motion, the Court file, and all relevant legal authorities, and otherwise having been fully advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
Pursuant to an assignment of benefits, the Plaintiff, Professional Medical Building Group, Inc., submitted bills for medical services rendered to Manuel Prado for injuries sustained in an automobile accident which occurred on November 29, 2009. Upon receipt, the Defendant tendered payment for a portion of the bills, limiting payment at 80% of the Medicare Part B and Workers Compensation Fee Schedules.
Soon thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a three count Complaint seeking to recover the unpaid difference. In response to same, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiff’s Complaint pertaining to a Petition for Declaratory Relief. The basis of Defendant’s Motion was that the Petition for Declaratory Relief sought the same relief as Counts I and II. In addition, the Defendant alleged that the Petition for Declaratory Relief failed to state a cause of action as it “(a) fails to whos with specificity the nature of the rights Plaintiff seeks to establish; (b) fails to shows that Plaintiff is in doubt as to the existence or non-existence of some right in this case or; and/or (c) fails to show a bonafide controversy.”
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss III of Plaintiff’s Complaint was scheduled for hearing for February 03, 2016. At said hearing, counsel for each party entered into an Agreed Order denying Defendant’s Motion. The Defendant has now filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order dated February 03, 2016. The basis of Defendant’s motion is that the Court has already issued a ruling granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Application of the Medicare Part B and Workers’ Compensation Schedules thus there is no need for the Petition for Declaratory Relief. The Defendant’s Motion reincorporates its position in its previously filed Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Although a Court has the inherent and discretionary authority to reconsider its prior rulings this Court will not alter a prior decision absent a showing of “clear and obvious error” where “the interests of justice” demand correction. American Home Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess & Associates, Inc., 763 F.2d 1237, 1239 n. 2 (11th Cir. 1985). Motions for reconsideration/rehearing “should not be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made’” earlier. Lussier v. Dugger, 904 F.2d 661, 667 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting FDIC v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986)). This is especially true when considering Orders which were knowingly and willingly agreed to between parties. The Defendant has failed to show this Court that the subject Agreed Order was entered based on an error, coercion or injustice.
Even if the Court was inclined to entertain Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, this Court has previously ruled that the Plaintiff has the right to choose its legal strategy and the right to pursue its chosen legal path. The mere existence of another remedy at law does not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief. Maciejewski vs. Holland, 441 So.2d 703 (1983). See also Professional Medical Building Group, Inc. a/a/o Niurka Zamora v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2014-1868-SP-25-01 (February 27, 2018)
Therefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that as a matter of law, Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Dated February 03, 2016 is hereby DENIED.
