26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 164a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2603JROSInsurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Reasonableness of charges — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of medical provider on reasonableness of medical bills where there were genuine issues of material fact as to reasonableness of charges
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. GABLES INSURANCE RECOVERY, INC., a/a/o Juan M. Rosales, Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case Nos. 14-035 AP & 14-036 AP. L.T. Case Nos. 2011009370SP25 & 2011009372SP25. January 26, 2018. Consolidated Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Nuria Saenz, Judge. Counsel: Nancy W. Gregoire, Birnbaum, Lippman & Gregoire, PLLC. Fort Lauderdale, and Luis N. Perez, Perez and Rodriguez, P.A., Coral Gables, for Appellant. G. Bart. Billbrough, Billbrough & Marks, P.A. and Dagmar Llaudy, Law Offices of Dagmar Llaudy, P.A., for Appellee.
(Before ZAYAS, FAJARDO ORSHAN, and SANTOVENIA, JJ.)
(PER CURIAM.)
(SANTOVENIA, J.) This is an appeal from the final summary judgments in favor of Appellee Gables Insurance Recovery, Inc. as assignee of Juan M. Rosales and Maritza Paredes (“G.I.R.”). G.I.R., the Plaintiff in the trial court, sued Appellant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), the Defendant in the trial court, for personal injury protection (“PIP”) insurance benefits. State Farm appeals the trial court’s granting of two summary judgments in favor of G.I.R. on January 8, 2014. In both summary judgments, the trial court held that as a matter of law, the medical provider’s amounts billed for the treatment of each patient were reasonable as charged.
Summary judgment is proper only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1977); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966); Visingardi v. Tirone, 193 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1966). The standard of review for a trial court’s order granting summary judgment is de novo. Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly S390a]. This standard of review requires that the appellate court view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Sierra v. Shevin, 767 So. 2d 524, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D1605a]. Where a reviewing court finds that there are still genuine issues of material fact in connection with the summary judgment, reversal is appropriate. See, e.g., Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985) (reversing grant of summary judgment in favor of physician where evidence did not conclusively show when parents were on notice that doctor had committed malpractice); Smith v. Musso, 151 So. 2d 475, 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963) (reversing grant of summary judgment to defendant where sworn deposition relied on by defendant left numerous unresolved questions as to liability).
Having reviewed the record on appeal, we find that G.I.R. did not carry its burden of showing that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to the reasonableness of the amounts of the medical bills from All X-ray Diagnostic Services, Corp. Given that there were genuine issues of material fact as to the reasonableness of the charges, we reverse the trial court below as to this issue.
Thus, we reverse the summary judgments below, direct the lower court to vacate the orders granting final judgment in favor of Appellee, and remand this cause to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED. (ZAYAS and FAJARDO ORSHAN, JJ. concur)
