JUAN PORRAS, PETITIONER,
v.
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves a petition for a writ of certiorari regarding whether a "valid report" under Florida Statute section 627.736(7)(a) can be based on a treating physician's examination, rather than one conducted by the reporting physician or on the insurer's behalf. The court denied the writ, upholding prior precedent.
Yes, a "valid report" under section 627.736(7)(a) can be based on a physical examination conducted by the treating physician and does not require an examination by the reporting physician or one conducted on the insurer's behalf. The court denied the petition for certiorari.
[1] A "valid report" under section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes, may be based on a physical examination conducted by the treating physician.
[2] A "valid report" under section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes, does not require a physical examination by the reporting physician.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a “valid report” may be based on a physical examination conducted by the treating physician and does not require a physical examination by the reporting physician or an examination conducted on the insurer’s behalf.”
Establishes the core legal principle regarding the validity of reports under the statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJuan Porras obtained a final summary judgment in county court. The circuit court appellate division reversed this judgment. Porras then petitioned for…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Juan Porras petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision of the circuit court appellate division, which reversed the county court’s entry of final summary judgment in his favor.
We deny the writ based on this Court’s decisions in Partners in Health Chiropractic v. United Automobile Insurance Co., 21 So.3d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Metro Injury & Rehab Center, 16 So.3d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), and United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Comprehensive Health Center, LLC, 26 So.3d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), all of which hold that, pursuant to section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), a “valid report” may be based on a physical examination conducted by the treating physician and does not require a physical examination by the reporting physician or an examination conducted on the insurer’s behalf. See Partners in Health Chiropractic, 21 So.3d at 864 (a section (7)(a) report “does not have to be predicated on either a physical examination by the reporting physician or on a physical examination conducted on behalf of the insurer (an IME) but may be premised on review of the records of the insured’s treating physician”); Metro Injury & Rehab Ctr., 16 So.3d at 900 (“[T]he physician preparing the report ... may base the report on another physician’s examination whether an IME or an examination conducted by the treating physician.”); Comprehensive Health Ctr., 26 So.3d at 49 (“[A] physician’s report ... under section 627.736(7)(a), need not be based on a physical examination conducted by either the reporting physician or by another physician on the insurance company’s behalf.”); accord Cent. Magnetic Imaging Open *941 MRI of Plantation, Ltd. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 22 So.3d 782, 783 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (section (7)(a) does not require a personal injury protection insurer to obtain an independent medical examination for purpose of meeting “valid report” provision), United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hollywood Injury Rehab Ctr., 27 So.3d 743, 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (same).
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- P'rs IN Health Chiropractic v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 21 So. 3d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Vaught v. McNEIL, 16 So. 3d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Metro Injury & Rehab Ctr., 16 So. 3d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Cent. Magnetic Imaging Open MRI OF Plantation, Ltd. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 22 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- State v. Tadduni, 27 So. 3d 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hollywood Injury Rehab Ctr., 27 So. 3d 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Comprehensive Health Ctr., LLC, 26 So. 3d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)