8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 735c
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Plaintiff is not entitled to recover PIP benefits for MRI provided to insured, where plaintiff does not perform necessary medical services and is not a “physician, hospital, clinic, or other person or institution lawfully rendering treatment to an injured person for a bodily injury covered by PIP insurance”
ADVANCED MEDICAL DIAGNOSTICS (on assignment from Knoe Pham), Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Civil Division. Case No. 00-3738-CO-040. August 3, 2001. Henry J. Andringa, Judge. Counsel: William K. Saron, Saron and Eisenstadt, St. Petersburg, for Plaintiff. David B. Kampf, Ramey, Ramey and Kampf, Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This case is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The facts upon which the motion is based are as follows:
1. Insured was injured in an automobile accident.
2. Insured treated with Dr. Strubbe, sole shareholder in Strubbe Chiropractic Clinic, P.A., the plaintiff herein.
3. The plaintiff referred insured to Open MRI Pinellas for an MRI.
4. Open MRI Pinellas had the MRI performed at a facility operated by Diagnostic Outpatient Centers, Inc.
5. Diagnostic Outpatient Centers, Inc. billed Open MRI Pinellas $225.00 for the use of this facility.
6. Open MRI Pinellas billed Advanced Medical Diagnostics $300.00 for the MRI.
7. As shown in the amended caption, Strubbe Chiropractic Clinic, P.A. does business as Advanced Medical Diagnostics.
8. Advanced Medical Diagnostics billed defendant $1,250.00 for the MRI.
9. The Motion for Summary Judgment is granted because plaintiff does not perform necessary medical services and is not a “physician, hospital, clinic or other person or institution lawfully rendering treatment to an injured person for a bodily injury covered by PIP insurance.” 627.736, Florida Statutes (2000). Federated National Insurance Company vs. Physicians Charter Services, 26 Florida Law Weekly D1637b, (Fla. 3rd DCA, July 5, 2001).
10. In light of the foregoing, the court need not address the additional issues of self referral and patient brokering, also fairly raised.
* * *
