Category Archives: Case Law

Third DCA Rules for Insurer in GEICO v. Gables Insurance Recovery

In an opinion issued December 10, 2014 in the case of GEICO v. Gables Insurance Recovery (a/a/o Rita M. Lauzan), the Third District Court of Appeal quashed a Circuit Court Appellate Division’s decision affirming final judgment in favor of Gables Insurance.

Lauzan, who was insured by GEICO, was injured in an automobile accident in 2008. After obtaining medical treatment, she assigned her GEICO policy benefits to All X-Ray Diagnostic Services, which subsequently assigned the benefits to Gables Insurance.

GEICO paid less than the amount it had been billed, and Gables Insurance filed a breach of contract action against GEICO. GEICO argued that Lauzan’s $10,000 PIP benefits had been exhausted and that it therefore had no further liability to Gables.

Deciding in GEICO’s favor, the Third District Court of Appeal held that the PIP statute does not require an insurer to pay more than the $10,000 limit in PIP coverage. Further, it does not require an insurer to “set aside” funds in anticipation of litigation. The Court noted that two other District Courts of Appeal have addressed the issue, holding that a showing of bad faith or impropriety on the part of the insurer is required before it can be held liable for benefits above the statutory limit.

Quoting a recent Fourth District Court of Appeal case, Northwoods v. State Farm, the Court concluded that once PIP benefits are exhausted, “an insurer has no further liability on unresolved, pending claims, absent bad faith in the handling of the claim by the insurance company.”

The case is GEICO Indemnity Co. v. Gables Insurance Recovery (a/a/o Rita M. Lauzan), Case No. 3D13-2264 (Fla. 3rd DCA, December 10, 2014). Click on the link to read the court opinion.

The case cited is Northwoods Sports Medicine v. State Farm, 137 So. 3d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

Comments Off

Filed under Case Law, Fla. Stat. 627.736 (2008)

Third DCA Upholds Ruling in PIP Case Millennium Radiology v. State Farm

On December 10, 2014, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court ruling in Millennium Radiology (a/a/o Yesenia Arango) v. State Farm. In the case, Yesenia Arango’s $10,000 PIP policy limits were exhausted after a lawsuit was filed and served on State Farm by Millennium Radiology.

Roig Lawyers attorney Mark Rose had successfully argued in the lower court that paying out the entire $10,000 was a complete bar to additional claims against the policy of insurance, absent bad faith on the insurer’s part or the insurer’s payment of untimely submitted bills. Following the ruling, the case was certified as a question of great public importance to the Third District Court of Appeal.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling, finding that in an action brought by an assignor of PIP benefits that is founded upon a breach of contract, exhaustion of PIP benefits after a lawsuit is filed “absolves the insurer from any responsibility to pay an otherwise valid claim” where the exhaustion occurred (1) after the insurer paid an amount less than the provider feels was appropriate; (2) after a lawsuit has been served on the insurer; and (3) absent any bad faith by the insurer in the handling of the claims.

The case is Millennium Radiology v. State Farm, Case No. 3D12-3143 (Fla. 3rd DCA, December 10, 2014). Click on the link to view the court ruling.

Comments Off

Filed under Case Law, Fla. Stat. 627.736 (2008)

Court Rules for Progressive in Health Care Clinic Licensing Dispute

On July 29, 2014, the 13th Judicial Circuit Court for Hillsborough County granted final judgment in favor of Progressive Insurance in a case involving licensure violations by defendant health care clinic Best Medical. The defendant did not undertake a defense.

The following facts were undisputed:

  • Best Medical listed licensed massage therapist Jorge Romero as its 100% owner;
  • Romero did not actually own Best Medical, but was paid $2,000 a month for the right to use his credentials and claim that he was the owner;
  • Best Medical obtained a certificate from the State of Florida exempting it from licensure as a health care clinic by utilizing Romero’s credentials; and,
  • Progressive paid Best Medical PIP reimbursements in excess of $97,000 in response to bills submitted.

In his analysis of the case, Judge James Arnold noted that the Florida PIP statute requires that medical services be lawfully rendered and the corresponding bills be lawfully submitted to be valid. Additionally, the statute provides an insurer, such as Progressive, the right to challenge potential licensure violations, including the ownership of a clinic.

Florida’s Health Care Clinic Act requires that all medical clinics operating in Florida be licensed unless they are exempted. Relevant here is that a clinic “wholly owned by one or more licensed health care practitioners” is exempt from licensure.

The facts showed, however, that Romero was never the 100% owner of Best Medical. The clinic was therefore not entitled to the exemption for being wholly owned by a licensed health care practitioner.

Lacking a lawful exemption, Best Medical was required to possess valid licenses pursuant to the Health Care Clinic Act. Because it possessed no such licenses, Best Medical lacked the ability to lawfully render medical services and lawfully submit corresponding bills as required by Florida’s PIP statute.

Accordingly, Progressive was held not liable for payment of the bills rendered by Best Medical for reimbursement of purported medical services.

The case is Progressive v. Best Medical Healthcare Solution (f/k/a Tropical Healing Power), Case No. 14-CA-000327 Div. J (July 29, 2014). Click on the link to read the Final Judgment.

Comments Off

Filed under Case Law

Allstate to Recover Almost $1 Million in PIP Case against Dr. Sara Vizcay

In a case brought by Allstate in the Florida Middle District, the court ruled on August 1st that the Defendant’s Motion for Declaration of Mistrial was denied, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment was granted in part, and the final judgment was ordered.

Dr. Sara C. Vizcay and the seven medical clinics listed below were the Defendants in the case.

  • Best Care Medical Center, Inc.
  • Caleb Health Care, Inc.
  • Florida Rehabilitation Practice, Inc.
  • Global Diagnostic Center, Inc.
  • Personal Medical Center, Inc.
  • P.V.C. Medical Center, Inc.
  • Regional Enterprises for Health Corporation

Fraudulent billing practices and failure to comply with the licensing requirements of the Florida Health Care Clinic Act (HCCA) formed the basis of Plaintiff allegations. In a jury trial earlier this year, the jury found that each Defendant misrepresented material facts.

The court noted that the “jury unanimously found Plaintiffs proved, by a preponderance of evidence, that Dr. Vizcay failed to substantially comply with her statutory medical director duties to systematically review bills … and to ensure those bills were not fraudulent or unlawful.”

The total amount to be recovered by Allstate is $942,883.41, and Plaintiff is not obligated to pay any unpaid amounts.

The case is Allstate v. Sara C. Vizcay, M.D. et al., U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case No. 8:11-CV-804-EAK-EAJ. Click on the link to read the August 1, 2014 Order of Judgment.

Comments Off

Filed under Case Law, Insurance Fraud

Eleventh Circuit Dismisses PIP Case Involving EMC and Massage Therapy

A class action suit filed by plaintiff Accumed Chiropractic against Progressive Select Insurance was dismissed on July 31, 2014 by Circuit Court Judge Antonio Arzola. Judge Arzola concluded that the action was inappropriate for class action treatment.

The suit was brought on behalf of plaintiff itself and two putative classes. The first class was to be anyone who was denied payment by Progressive under PIP or MedPay insurance coverage where Progressive’s denial was based on an assertion that an Emergency Medical Condition for the insured was not established.

The second class was to be defined as anyone whose PIP or MedPay claim was denied because the health care service was for massage therapy or acupuncture. Plaintiff sought both declaratory relief and damages for breach of contract.

Plaintiff stipulated at the hearing that it did not have standing to sue for MedPay benefits. As for the PIP claims, Judge Arzola found that the “necessary and individualized questions associated with the underlying PIP claims of the class will predominate in this Action.” As a matter of law, therefore, plaintiff’s case could not proceed as a class action, and the complaint was dismissed without prejudice.

The case is Accumed Chiropractic & Wellness Center, Inc. v. Progressive Select Insurance Company, Case No. 13-CA-029396 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct., July 31, 2014). Click on the link to view the court order.

Comments Off

Filed under Case Law

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Granted with Prejudice in PIP Benefits Case Involving Challenge to “Emergency Medical Condition” (EMC) Provision

In a second ruling within one week involving Florida’s amended PIP law, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a case challenging reimbursement under the amended statute’s “emergency medical condition” or “EMC” provision. See our earlier post titled Court Grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in Robbins v. Garrison P & C.

Sendy Enivert sued her auto insurance company, Progressive Select, alleging breach of contract for failing to pay her PIP benefits to a limit of $10,000. Enivert’s claim involved the newly added provision to Florida’s PIP law which limits PIP benefits depending on whether a claimant has suffered an emergency medical condition.

Plaintiff Enivert interpreted this language to mean that an insured is limited to $2,500 only if a medical provider determines that there is no emergency medical condition. She argued that because, in her case, no medical provider ever made such a determination, she was entitled to the full $10,000. In other words, because no medical provider determined that she did not have an emergency medical condition, she was entitled to full benefits.

Defendant Progressive read the statute to mean the opposite, i.e., that a medical provider must affirmatively determine that an emergency medical condition does exist in order for the insured to be eligible for reimbursement of the full amount.

The court agreed with Progressive, concluding that the PIP statute clearly indicates that a determination that a claimant has suffered an emergency medical condition is required in order to receive benefits in excess of the $2,500 limit. Since a medical provider did not determine that Enivert had an emergency medical condition, she was not entitled to the full $10,000 in benefits.

The court also looked to the legislative intent behind the PIP statute. It concluded that the clear legislative intent was to decrease PIP fraud by placing more stringent requirements in order to receive the maximum amount of benefits.

Based on the above, the court granted Progressive’s motion to dismiss Enivert’s case.

The case is Sendy Enivert v. Progressive Select Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 14-CV-80279-Ryskamp/Hopkins (S.D. Fla. July 23, 2014). Click on the link to read the court ruling.

Comments Off

Filed under Case Law, Fla. Stat. 627.736 (2012)

Court Grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in Robbins v. Garrison P & C

On July 18, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a case in which the plaintiff challenged reimbursement under the amended statute’s “emergency medical condition” (“EMC”) provision.

Glenaan Robbins sued her auto insurer, Garrison P&C Insurance Co., alleging that Garrison violated the 2013 provision of Florida’s PIP law that limits PIP benefits depending on a determination of whether or not the claimant suffered an emergency medical condition.

Robbins sustained injuries in an April 2013 car accident. She was treated for her injuries and alleged that ultimately “no determination was made that she did not have an emergency medical condition.” When Robbins submitted her claim to her insurer Garrison, Garrison limited her reimbursement to $2,500.

FL PIP law requires that an insurance company must reimburse its injured insured up to $10,000 if certain medical providers determine that the injured person had an emergency medical condition. Reimbursement is limited to $2,500 if a provider determines that the injured person did not have an emergency medical condition.

In this case, no determination was made either way that an emergency medical condition did or did not exist. Plaintiff Robbins argued that where there has been no such determination, insurance companies must reimburse medical expenses up to $10,000. In other words, unless a determination of no emergency medical condition is made, the plaintiff is entitled to the higher amount.

Reviewing the language of the statute and legislative intent, however, the court concluded that Robbins’ argument had no merit. Rather, where there has been no determination of an emergency medical condition made, PIP medical benefits are not to exceed $2,500. Thus, contrary to Robbins’ argument, the conclusion of the court was that unless there is a determination of an emergency condition, the reimbursement is limited to $2,500.

The court therefore held that Robbins had failed to allege a statutory claim and her case was dismissed.

The case is Glenaan Robbins v. Garrison Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 13-81259-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla. July 18, 2014). Click on the link to read the court ruling.

Comments Off

Filed under Case Law, Fla. Stat. 627.736 (2012)