UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A/A/O MERCEDES V
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.
United Automobile Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment in favor of Professional Medical Group, Inc. regarding personal injury protection benefits. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the treating physician's opinion on the reasonableness of medical charges without proper Daubert analysis.
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in both respects. The treating physician's testimony did not satisfy the Daubert standard because he merely stated he was familiar with the charges and that they were reasonable based on experience, without explaining how that experience led to the opinion, why it was a sufficient basis, or how it was reliably applied to the facts.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion when it admits expert testimony that fails to satisfy the Daubert standard for reliability.
[2] When an expert relies primarily on experience, the expert must explain how that experience leads to their opinion, why it is a sufficient basis, and how it is reliably ap…
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“Under the Daubert standard, when an expert is relying primarily on experience, the expert must explain how that experience leads to his or her opinion, why the experience is a sufficient basis for his or her opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts.”
Establishes the required foundation for expert testimony based on experience under the Daubert standard
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceProfessional Medical Group, Inc. sought personal injury protection benefits from United Automobile Insurance Company for medical charges incurred afte…
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.
a/a/o MERCEDES VALIENTES, on Appellee. _ _ / Opinion Filed: An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Saenz, J. Michael }.Nei1nand, Esq., The Office of the General Counsel, United Automobile Insurance Company Trial Division, for Appellant. Marlene S. Reiss, Esq. ofthe Law Offices of Marlene S. Reiss, Esq., P.A. and Armando A. Brena, Esq. ofArmando A. Brana, P.A. for Appellee. Before KORVICK;/SARDUY, and RUIZ COHEN, .I.I. (RUIZ COHEN, J.) “~”“""‘“"“ . This is an appeal from a final. umin udgment' in a breach of contract for personal injury protection benefits. The issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion ‘ The record establishes that the final summary judgment below was entered by Hon. Nuria. Saenz but the two day final summary judgment hearing was heard by the Hon. Lourdes Simon. E 1.‘
I.
¥ z I i I l [*2] when it found that the opinion of Progressive Medical Group Inc.’s treating physician, concerning the reasonableness of the medical charges after November 9, 2006, was expert witness testimony that satisfied the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) standard under section 90.702, Florida Statutes (2013), and Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it found that the treating physician’s methodology of usual and customary charges in the medical community satisfied the catch-all factor provision of section 627.736(5)(a)1 , Florida Statutes (2006). Because We find that the trial court abused its discretion in making those findings, we reverse the final summary judgment below and remand for the trial court to determine whether or not the opinion of Progressive Medical Group Inc.’s treating physician was fact or lay Witness testimony regarding the reasonableness ofthe medical charges. The treating physician merely testified that he is familiar with the amounts charged and that based on his thirty-two years of experience, the charges were reasonable. Under the Daubert standard, when an expert is relying primarily on experience, the expert must explain how that experience leads to his or her opinion, why the experience is a sufficient basis for his or her opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. C0. v. Physicians Injury Care Ctrz, Ina, 2009 WL 6357793 at *1, *19 (M.D. Fla. 2009); Charles W. Ehrhardt, 1 West’s Fla. Proc. Evidence § 702.3 (2015 ed.). We find that there was no such testimony by the treating physician to meet the Daubert standard. Progressive Medical Group Inc.’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees under section 627.428, Florida Statutes (2006) is hereby denied. REVERSED and REMANDED for lurther proceedings. (KORVICK and SARDUY, JJ. concur.)
COPIES FURNISHED TO COUNSEL
OF RECORD AND TO ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
l .1: z if , E r l I I l i L4 I