9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 330a
Insurance — Dispute between medical provider and insurer — Assignment — Insurer’s motion for summary judgment is granted where purported assignment and HCFA forms do not identify insurance company in which insured was assigning her rights
NATHANSON CHIROPRACTIC CENTER (Patient: Lisa Potter), Plaintiff, vs. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Civil Division. Case No. SS-01-14717-RD. February 13, 2002. Charles E. Burton, Judge. Counsel: Charles Glen Ged, Boca Raton. Miriam R. Merlo, John S. Gaebe & Associates, P.A., Miami.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT
This case came before the Court on February 12, 2002 upon the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Upon a review of the pleadings filed in this cause, the Court finds as follows:
1. This action was filed on July 2, 2001 for PIP benefits.
2. Attached to the complaint as Exhibit A is a purported assignment of benefits dated December 3, 1997 signed by Lisa Potter as policyholder.
3. The purported assignment does not identify any insurance company in which Ms. Potter was assigning her rights to. The document indicates that “I hereby instruct and direct the ________ Insurance Company to pay by check made out and mailed directly to…”
4. Attached to the motion are copies of the HCFA forms which reflect treatment back in 1997 and 1998, but reflect a signature date of November, 2001. Moreover, while the assignment was directed to Nathanson Chiropractic, the HCFA forms direct payment to Michael E. Nathanson, DC.
The Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because the alleged assignment does not identify them as the insurer to whom benefits were assigned and the Plaintiff’s lack of standing based on the name of physician as reflected on the HCFA form. Here, the purported assignment in no way identifies the Defendant or any company. Likewise, the HCFA forms reflect they were sent to James Wilkerson, Jr., Esquire, an attorney in West Palm Beach and in no way identify the Defendant as the insurance company. While Plaintiff’s counsel represented that the dates of November, 2001 on the HCFA forms were due to them being generated because the Plaintiff no longer maintained the originals, there was no affidavit filed to reflect that fact. In fact, in response to discovery, the Plaintiff indicated he had no records, yet he filed an affidavit with the Court stating under oath that the forms were mailed to USAA on five specific dates.
An assignment is defined as “a transfer or setting over of property or of some right or interest therein, from one person to another”. USAA Casualty Ins. Co. v. Romm, 712 So.2d 405,406 (Fla. 4 DCA 1998). Moreover, it transfers to the assignee all interest of the assignor in the property or the right to make a claim thereon. Livingston v. State Farm Ins. Co., 774 So.2d 716 (Fla. 2 DCA 2000). In the instant case, the Defendant would have no way of knowing what their insured was assigning to the Plaintiff. They certainly would not be left in a position where they could protect their insured or themselves. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
* * *
