9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 706b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Medical bills — Summary judgment is granted in favor of insurer on medical provider’s claim for unpaid portion of bill for MRI performed on July 25, 2001, where insurer paid 200% of Medicare Part B for year 2001 at participating rate, and amendment to section 627.736(5)(b)5 mandates that all MRIs performed on or after June 19, 2001, shall be payable in accordance with allowable amounts of Medicare Part B for 2001
COASTAL NEUROLOGY & REHAB CENTER, as assignee of Jeanette Schiano, Plaintiff, vs. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County. Case No. 2001-35302 COCI, Division 82. August 9, 2002. H. Pope Hamrick, Jr., Judge. Counsel: Kimberly P. Simoes, for Plaintiff. Patricia S. Sechan, Barnett, Barnard & Sechan, Hollywood, for Defendant.
FINAL ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING GEICO’SORE TENUS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTAND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THEDEFENDANT, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
THIS CAUSE, having come on to be heard on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant, GEICO’s Ore Tenus Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion and enters Final Judgment in Favor of The Defendant, GEICO General Insurance Company and the Court having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise advised in the Premises, it is hereupon,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said “Ore Tenus” Motion for Summary Judgment be, and the same is hereby granted.Undisputed Facts
1. On June 28, 2001 GEICO’s insured was injured in an automobile accident.
2. The insured, Ms. Jeanette Schiano, thereafter sought care and treatment for her injuries.
3. Her physician ordered an MRI performed on the insured which was done on July 25, 2001.
4. GEICO timely paid the MRI bill which forms the basis of this suit in an amount GEICO believed was required by the amended PIP statute 627.736(5)(b)5 or at 200% of medicare part B for the year 2001 at the participating rate.
5. Plaintiff filed suit believing that the general enabling provisions found in afootnote to the amended PIP statute was controlling in this action and was seeking the difference between what was paid and 80% of what was billed.
6. The parties hereto stipulated that Governor Jeb Bush signed the amended PIP statute into law on June 19th, 2001 and further stipulated to the court that the sole issue in the case was a legal issue of statutory interpretation.Applicable Law
7. This Court finds that the specific provisions found at 627.736(5)(b)5 control the controversy in this case. “A specific statute controls a general statue covering the same subject.” Gertz v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 572 So.2d 1384 (Fla. 1991).
8. The plain meaning and the specific provisions “Effective upon this act becoming law” clearly mandates that all MRIs performed on or after June 19th, 2001 shall be payable in accordance with the “allowable amounts of Medicare Part B for 2001”.
9. This Court was further persuaded by the Informational Memo issued by the Department of Insurance advising all auto insurers in thisstate that the effective date for the MRI fee schedule or the provisions of F.S. 627.736(5)(b)5 was June 19th, 2001. “An agency of the state is afforded wide discretion in the interpretation of a statute which it will administer and such interpretation will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous.” Dyer vs. Department of Insurance and Treasurer, 585 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
10. Courts are required to “give great weight to the opinions of state regulatory agency when interpreting statutes”. National Federation of Retired Persons v. Department of Insurance, 553 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1989).Conclusion
11. This Court hereby denies Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment and Grants GEICO’s “Ore Tenus” Motion For Summary Judgment there being no objection from the Plaintiff.
12. The plaintiff herein shall take nothing by this action and the defendant GEICO shall go hence without day. This court shall retain jurisdiction for the purpose of awarding fees and cost if applicable.
* * *
