26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 618b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2608SABAInsurance — Coverage — Medical expenses — Reasonable, related and necessary treatment — Summary judgment reversed where provider did not present timely, competent evidence of assignment of benefits and genuine issues of fact remain regarding whether the person mentioned in accident report is same person provider treated, whether treatments were medically necessary and related to accident, and whether the charges for such treatments was reasonable
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. RIVERO DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, INC. a/a/o Clara Sabates Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 14-219 AP. L.T. Case No. 04 4591 SP 26 (4). October 11, 2018. An appeal from the County Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Lawrence D. King, Judge. Counsel: Nancy W. Gregoire, Birnbaum, Lippman & Gregoire, PLLC, for Appellant. Maria E. Corredor, Corredor & Husseini, P.A., for Appellee.1
(Before KORVICK and REBULL, JJ.)2
(PER CURIAM.) Because we find there are genuine issues of material fact, we reverse in its entirety the final summary judgment entered in favor of Rivero Diagnostic. As the trial judge recognized at an earlier stage of the case, Rivero Diagnostic did not present timely, competent summary judgment evidence in support of the alleged assignment of benefits from Clara Sabates to Rivero Diagnostic. We deny State Farm’s request that we remand for judgment in its favor. It did not move for summary judgment below. And Rivero Diagnostic may still attempt to prove at trial that it has standing by way of admissible evidence that it has a valid of assignment of benefits.
We also find a genuine issue of fact on the issue of whether the “Clara Duran” mentioned in the accident report is the same person as the “Clara Sabates” who received the treatment for which Rivero Diagnostic is suing in this action. We further hold that Rivero Diagnostic’s affidavit in support of its summary judgment motion (from Dr. Barredo), did not show that there was no genuine issue of fact regarding whether Rivero’s nerve conduction velocity tests were medically necessary and related to the accident for which Ms. Sabates sought treatment. Lastly, Dr. Barredo’s deposition testimony raised a genuine issue of fact regarding the reasonableness of the total charges for the nerve conduction velocity tests, as did the conflicting deposition testimony as to reasonableness from State Farm’s witness, Dr. Gelblum.
For all of these reasons, we reverse the final summary judgment entered in this case, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
__________________
1After being given several opportunities to do so, the Appellee failed to file an answer brief.
2The Honorable Valerie Manno Schurr granted the Appellant’s oral motion to disqualify, made at oral argument.
