9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 639a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Standing — Assignment — Document that states it is a direct assignment of rights and benefits under policy is a valid assignment, not direction to pay — Absence of medical provider’s signature alone does not invalidate otherwise valid assignment — Court may look to medical provider’s conduct in providing treatment, submitting bills to insurer, and filing PIP suit to determine medical provider’s intent to accept assignment — Motion to dismiss denied
TOTAL HEALTH CARE OF FLORIDA, as assignee for Reina Perez, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 01-015857 COCE 53. July 22, 2002. William W. Herring, Judge. Counsel: Cris E. Boyar, for Plaintiff. Amy Fisher, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOT10N TO DISMISS
This matter coming on to be heard, upon the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing and Subject Matter Jurisdiction, and the being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows.
1. The Plaintiff filed suit for personal injury protection benefits for treatment which took place in 2001. The Plaintiff attached an assignment of benefits to the complaint.
2. The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss attacks the assignment of benefits for two reasons. First, the Defendant alleges the document is a direction to pay. Second, the Defendant alleges the assignment of benefits it is not a valid assignment of benefits because the Plaintiff provider did not sign the assignment of benefits form. The Defendant did not provide the Court with any cases directly on point.
3. The Court finds the document to be a valid assignment of benefits and not a direction to pay because it states:
I, REINA PEREZ, DO HEREBY REQUEST AND INSTRUCT THE ABOVE INSURANCE COMPANY TO PAY BY CHECK MADE PAYABLE TO AND SENT DIRECTLY TO TOTAL HEALTH CARE OF FLORIDA FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED TO ME, AND PAYABLE UNDER MY POLICY BENEFITS. THIS IS A DIRECT ASSIGNMENT OF MY RIGHTS AND BENEFITS UNDER THE POLICY.”
4. Additionally, the Court finds as a matter of Florida law the provider does not have to sign the assignment of benefits form in order for the document to be a valid assignment of benefits.
5. It is clear the patient evidenced her intent to assign her benefits under the policy of insurance to the Plaintiff medical provider.
6. The lack of a written signature by the medical provider on the assignment standing alone does not invalidate an otherwise valid assignment of benefits. Further, the Court can look to the provider’s conduct by treating the patient, submitting bills to the Defendant and filing a PIP suit to determine it was the intent of the provider to accept an assignment of benefits.
7. Accordingly, pursuant to the case law cited above, the Defendant’s Motion is hereby denied with prejudice.
* * *
