UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

v.

ATLANTIC MEDICAL SPECIALTY INC

PER CURIAM.

The Appellant, United Automobile Insurance Company (“United Auto”) appeais a final judgment for medical benefitsi rendered in favor ofthe Appellee, Atlantic Medical Specialty, Inc. (“Atlantic”). We have jurisdiction. See § 26.0l2(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). We reverse. [*2] CASE NUMBER: 12-010 AP .

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The insured, Manuel Floyd (“the insured”), had an automobile accident on November 19, 2007. At the time of the accident, the insured had an automobile insurance policy with United Auto providing for personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits. As a consequence ofthe accident, the insured sustained injuries and sought medical treatment from Atlantic. The insured assigned its benefits and policy rights to Atlantic. As the assignee, Atlantic made a demand for payment to United Auto for medical treatment or services provided to the insured. Upon United Auto’s failure to pay, Atlantic filed suit. In its answer to the complaint, United Auto asserted the affirmative defense that the medical treatment was not lawfully rendered as Atlantic failed to comply with chiropractic record keeping statutory requirements. - Subsequently, Atlantic filed its motion for summary judgment as to record keeping asserting that United Auto’s defense had no legal basis. The court granted Atlantic’s motion. Thereafter, Atlantic filed a second motion for summary judgment as to the issue of reasonableness, relatedness, and medical necessity (“RRN”). The court granted Atlantic’s motion as to_ RRN and entered the final judgment. This appeal timely followed.

II. Standard ofreview

The appellate court reviews questions involving the interpretation of a statute de novo. Brown v. City of Vero Beach, 64 So. 3d 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). The same standard applies to the appellate review of a summary judgment. Futch v. Wal-Mart Stores, Ina, 988 So. 2d 687 (Fla. lst DCA 2008). In reviewing a summary judgment, the court determines: (1) “whether there are genuine issues of material fact” and (2) “whether the trial court properly applied the correct nile oflaw.” Futch, 988 So. 2d at 690. [*3] CASE NUMBER: l2-010 AP

III. Discussion

Summaryjudgment on record keeping We find that the affirmative defense, that the medical treatment was unlawfully rendered, was a valid affirmative defense as it was asserted under section 627."/36(5)(b)(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2007). We further find that failure to comply with chiropractic record keeping requirements is a valid legal ground to support such defense. See 62'7.732(1l), Fla. Stat. (2007); 460.4l3(1)(m), Fla. Stat. (2012); Fla. Admin. Code R. 64B2-l7.006S(2)(3). As such, the striking of the defense was erroneous. While the defense was inartfully drafted, United Auto has a right to question proper record keeping as an issue of fact. Summaryjudgment on RRN The affidavits filed below in support of Atlantic’s motion were legally deficient as they failed to comply with the statutory requirements prescribed by section ll7.05(4)(f)(5), Florida Statutes (2012). Additionally, the excerpts of the deposition incorporated into Atlantic’s motion for summary judgment, do not rise to the level of conclusively showing the absence of genuine issues ofmaterial facts as to RRN. As such, we find that summaryjudgment was entered in error as Atlantic failed to meet its initial burden of proof which was to conclusively show the absence of genuine issues of material fact. Hall v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1996); Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985).

IV. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, this matter is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Atlantic’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees is hereby DENIED. See § 627.428(l), Fla. Stat. (2012).