Volume 10

10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 207a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Amendments to paragraph (5)(b) of section 627.736, setting amounts to be charged for treatment and services, apply to treatment and services occurring on or after October 1, 2001

10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 744a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Claim for magnetic resonance imaging services by plaintiff which performed neither the technical nor the professional component of MRI — Fee-splitting — Plaintiff’s payment of radiologist to interpret MRIs on per-interpretation basis is not fee-splitting where radiologist’s compensation is not dependant on whether plaintiff receives payment for its services and is not fixed percentage or any type of commission on monies received by plaintiff — Patient-brokering — There was no patient-brokering arrangement as plaintiff is permitted by statute to pay radiologist for professional consultation services — Plaintiff which receives MRI films from MRI lab, transports films to interpreting radiologist, provides radiologist with letterhead onto which report is placed, and transports report back to lab for distribution does not provide any medical service for which it is eligible to receive payment under PIP statute

10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 426a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Lost wages — Insured is entitled to award of 60% of lost wages not covered by workers’ compensation, up to $10,000 policy limit of liability

10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 345a

Insurance — Motion to strike affirmative defense that independent medical examination and additional physician’s review of injuries and treatment found that injuries were not related to motor vehicle accident — Motion to strike denied based on finding that defense presented bona fide question of fact — Affirmative defense can be revisited by court after parties conduct discovery through motion for summary judgment

10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 790a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Whether agreement between medical provider and entity which performed MRI continues to be illegal fee-splitting as previously found in district court case was not proper defense to insured’s claim against insurer for cost of MRI where insured had nothing to do with allegedly illegal contract, and medical provider and entity that performed MRI were not brought into action as third-party defendants — Summary judgment in favor of insured is affirmed in light of insurer’s agreement that amount sought by insured was reasonable charge for medically necessary MRI

10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1040a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Claim for magnetic resonance imaging services by plaintiff which performed technical component of MRI and paid radiologist to perform professional component of MRI — Fee-splitting — Plaintiff and radiologist who did not have a business relationship with plaintiff and was paid by plaintiff on a per interpretation basis are not fee-splitting — Notice of loss — Insurer which has not established a modifier for technical components has made it impossible for technical component to be billed separately, and plaintiff provided legal timely notice of loss with claim form for both technical and professional components of MRI

10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1020c

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Claim for magnetic resonance imaging services by plaintiff which performed technical component of MRI and paid radiologist to perform professional component of MRI — Plaintiff would have been entitled to compensation for technical component if it had designated its bill to only seek compensation for that component — Plaintiff did not render and is not allowed to recover PIP benefits for professional component of MRI — Fee-splitting — Relationship between plaintiff and radiologist is not unlawful fee-splitting — Question certified whether medical provider can render medical service under section 627.736(5)(a) when medical service was provided through use of independent contractor

10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 201a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Exhaustion of benefits — Action for unpaid medical bill where policy limits have been exhausted by payment for lost wages pursuant to insured’s reservation of benefits — Insured who executed assignment of benefits to medical provider had no right to receive PIP benefits for lost wages after date of assignment to detriment of assignee — Even if insured had reserved PIP benefits for lost wages prior to assignment, the assignment would have extinguished the reservation of benefits to the extent of payment for services provided by assignee to insured — Summary judgment entered in favor of assignee

10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 789b

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Exhaustion of benefits on subsequent claims — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of insurer where, although insured cannot recover any more benefits, she may be entitled to statutory damages, including attorney’s fees

10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 738a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Medical bills — Reduction — Exhaustion of benefits — Action by medical provider for balance of partially paid bill after policy limits have been exhausted in payment of subsequent claims of other assignees — In the absence of absolute assignment of all benefits under policy to medical provider or bad faith on part of insurer in payment of subsequent claims, summary judgment in favor of insurer is granted