Volume 11

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 819a

Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Defendant against whom all claims were dismissed seeks attorney’s fees against subrogee of plaintiff who rejected offer of judgment — Subrogee that was not party to suit and was not named in or served with demand for judgment is not liable for attorney’s fees — Even if subrogee had been found to be party to suit or named in and served with demand for judgment, defendant would not be able to collect fees from subrogee because offer of judgment was invalid under rule 1.442 — Offer that is inconsistent by requiring execution of full and final release and stipulation for dismissal while also stating that there are no non-monetary terms of proposal is not valid under rule 1.442

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 788b

Insurance — Personal injury protection — PIP insurer not liable to assignee medical provider which did not have massage establishment license, as required by Chapter 480, or occupational license , as required by county code, although assignee employed license massage therapist and licensed chiropractor, both of whom provided claimant with treatment — Legislature’s intent in protecting public is best served by requiring facilities that render medical treatment to be licensed, in addition to the requirement that individual practitioners be licensed — With respect to occupational license, county code requires payment of occupational license tax and makes it a misdemeanor to operate facility without occupational license — Because treatment was unlawfully rendered, trial court erred in denying insurer’s motions for summary judgment and directed verdict

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 443c

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Late submitted bill — Bill submitted to wrong entity — Where due to erroneous information provided by insured, provider/assignee timely billed insured’s former insurer, former insurer denied claim, and provider promptly resubmitted claims upon receipt of correct insurance information more than thirty days after dates services were rendered, provider may recover benefits pursuant to 2001 amendment to PIP statute — Summary judgment granted in favor of provider — Explanation of benefits applying claim to insured’s deductible did not operate as denial and, according, provider was required to submit demand letter

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 341bNOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 452b

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical bills — Where provider/assignee or its billing company faxed medical bill to insurer more than thirty days after date of service and, despite provider’s claim that bill was mailed to insurer within thirty days of date of service, there is no evidence that earlier bill was ever generated or mailed to insurer, summary judgment is granted in favor of insurer

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 745b

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Nerve conduction testing — Lawfully rendered treatment — Insurer is absolved of liability for payment of charges for nerve conduction testing submitted by provider which performed both technical and professional component of test and had financial agreement with company wholly owned by referring chiropractor under which company would receive 51% of amount charged to insurer for technical component — Treatment was not lawfully rendered where provider and referring chiropractor’s company violated prohibitions against kick-backs and split-fee arrangements

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1032a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — MRI — Plaintiff which provided “professional component” of MRI, the “technical component” of which was provided exclusively by a board-certified radiologist who had his own practice, did not provide any “medical service” that could give rise to valid billing under section 627.736 — Neither corporate plaintiff nor corporation’s owner is entitled to recover from insurer

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1031b

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — MRI — Plaintiff which provided “professional component” of MRI, the “technical component” of which was provided exclusively by a board-certified radiologist who had his own practice, did not provide any “medical service” that could give rise to valid billing under section 627.736 — Neither corporate plaintiff nor corporation’s owner is entitled to recover from insurer

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1031a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — MRI — Plaintiff which provided “professional component” of MRI, the “technical component” of which was provided exclusively by a board-certified radiologist who had his own practice, did not provide any “medical service” that could give rise to valid billing under section 627.736 — Neither corporate plaintiff nor corporation’s owner is entitled to recover from insurer

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1030b

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — MRI — Plaintiff which provided “professional component” of MRI, the “technical component” of which was provided exclusively by a board-certified radiologist who had his own practice, did not provide any “medical service” that could give rise to valid billing under section 627.736 — Neither corporate plaintiff nor corporation’s owner is entitled to recover from insurer

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1030a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — MRI — Plaintiff which provided “professional component” of MRI, the “technical component” of which was provided exclusively by a board-certified radiologist who had his own practice, did not provide any “medical service” that could give rise to valid billing under section 627.736 — Neither corporate plaintiff nor corporation’s owner is entitled to recover from insurer