FEDERATED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
PHYSICIANS CHARTER SERVICES, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse PIP cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the three separate summary judgments rendered in declaratory judgment actions brought by appellee, Physicians Charter Services, Inc. (“PCS”), against appellant, Federated National Insurance Company (“Federated”).
PCS is not entitled to recover Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits for magnetic resonance imaging services allegedly provided to Federated’s insureds, because PCS does not perform necessary medical services and is not a “physician, hospital, clinic, or other person or institution lawfully rendering treatment to an injured person for a bodily injury covered by PIP insurance.” § 627.736, Fla. Stat. (2000). There is no provision in Florida’s personal injury protection statutes for the payment of policy benefits to a third party who has not performed medical services. Thus the trial court erred' in finding Federated liable for payment of PIP benefits to PCS, and in granting the final summary judgments in favor of PCS. Accordingly, the orders below are reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pressley, 28 So. 3d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…those bills submitted by the provider within the statutory time period. Id. The statute does not make any provision for the submission of medical bills by an insured or other third party. See Federated National Ins. Co. v. Physicians Charter Servs., 788 So. 2d 403, 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), rev. denied, 807 So. 2d 654 (Fla.2002). The clear intent of this statutory provision was to impose time limits on the submission of medical bills. See Warren, 899 So. 2d at 1094-95 (interpreting section 627.736(5)(b), Flori…
-
Prof'l Consulting Servs., Inc. v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 849 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…who could then collect the PIP benefits, because the statute is silent on the right to assign. But the court concluded it was obliged to dismiss Professional’s suit on the authority of Federated National Insurance Co. v. Physicians Charter Services, 788 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), review denied, 807 So. 2d 654 (Fla.2002). In Physicians Charter, the Third District reversed summary judgments against the PIP insurer, holding that because Physicians Charter did not provide medical services, it could not colle…
-
Med. Mgmt. Grp. OF Orlando, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 811 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…udge that the arrangement is nothing more than a fee-splitting scheme to compensate for MRI referrals prohibited by section 817.505, Florida Statutes. We also agree with the court in Federated National Insurance Co. v. Physicians Charter Services, 788 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), that a company such as MMGO is not entitled to be compensated for PIP benefits. Section 627.736(l)(a) provides that the insurer must pay 80% of the “medically necessary medical ... services.” We do not find that providing referra…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence