8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 846b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Preferred provider rates — Insurer could not reduce benefits paid to insured’s assignee to PPO rates as it did not have a PPO policy as required by statute
JEFF DAVIS, D.C., P.A., (As assignee of Angela Richards), Plaintiff, vs. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Small Claims Division. Case No. 2000-17951 SC, Division I. October 23, 2001. Charlotte W. Anderson, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick, Timothy A. Patrick, P.A., Tampa. Bruce Aebel.
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on September 5, 2001, on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, both parties appearing through counsel and the Court having heard argument of counsel, the court makes the following findings:
(1) There is no merit in Defendant’s argument on the issue of standing.
(2) The policy between the insured and Defendant was not a PPO policy as required by Florida Statutes Section 627.736(10).
(3) The Plaintiff medical provider, pursuant to the assignment of benefits, stands in the shoes of the insured and is entitled to the same rights and benefits as the insured.
(4) PPO rates should not apply.
(5) Defendant cannot decide which rates will be reasonable, necessary and related in this manner.
(6) Insured, by not purchasing a PPO policy, did not receive the benefit of lower premium rates. As such, pursuant to Section 627.736(10), Defendant cannot reduce benefits as PPO rates in this instance.
(7) The court adopts the reasoning of Judge Brewer and Judge Herring, respectively, in the cases of Dr. Jeffrey Shebovsky d/b/a South Orange Chiropractic Center (Glenn Jeffers) v. Peachtree Casualty Ins. Co., 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 246 (County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit, Orange County, Case No. CCO 99-9723, December 20, 2000); David W. Ice v. Progressive Bayside Ins. Co., 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 262 (County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Case No. 98-12491 COCE 53, December 12, 2000).
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that PLAINTIFF’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED.
* * *
