Case Search

Please select a category.

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. OPEN MRI OF MIAMI DADE, LTD., a/a/o Deogracia Barreras, Appellee.

28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 453a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2806BARRInsurance — Personal injury protection — Summary judgment — Error to reject affidavit of expert on reasonableness of charges

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. OPEN MRI OF MIAMI DADE, LTD., a/a/o Deogracia Barreras, Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 2019-103-AP 01. L.T. Case No. 2012-4185 SP 23. July 21, 2020. On Appeal from the County Court in and for Miami-Dade County. Hon. Myriam Lehr, Judge. Counsel: Michael Neimand, for Appellant. Kenneth J. Dorchak, Buchalter Hoffman and Dorchak, for Appellee.

(Before TRAWICK, WALSH and SANTOVENIA, JJ.)

(PER CURIAM.) Appellant appeals the trial court’s order granting final summary judgment on behalf of the Provider. Here the trial court rejected the conflicting affidavit offered by Appellant’s expert witness, Monica Johnson. As this panel and the majority of prior panels from this Court have found, it was an abuse of discretion to exclude Appellant’s conflicting affidavit on whether the medicals bills were reasonable in price. Taking Appellant’s excluded affidavit into account, it was error to grant summary judgment. This case is indistinguishable from our decisions in United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Miami-Dade MRI a/a/o Bermudez, 2018-164 AP 01 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. June 3, 2020) [28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 299a] and United Auto Ins. Co. v. Miami Dade County MRI, Corp. a/a/o Rodas Santo, 2018-103 AP 01 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. June 23, 2020), among numerous other cases. Accordingly, the summary judgment and final judgment entered below are hereby REVERSED, and this cause is REMANDED to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Appellee’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is DENIED. Appellant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is conditionally GRANTED (conditioned upon Appellant ultimately prevailing and the enforceability of the proposal for settlement) and REMANDED to the trial court to fix amount. (TRAWICK, WALSH and SANTOVENIA, JJ. concur.)

Skip to content