UNITED AUTOMOBILE
v.
HALLANDALE OPEN MRI
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 Auto Insurance Company appeals a summary judgment in favor of an MRI provider on the issue of medical billing reasonableness. The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding UAIC's conflicting expert affidavit and that summary judgment was therefore improper.
The court held that it was an abuse of discretion to exclude UAIC's conflicting affidavit on whether the medical bills were reasonable in price, and that summary judgment was therefore erroneously granted. Taking the excluded affidavit into account, the case cannot be resolved at the summary judgment stage.
[1] Excluding a conflicting affidavit on the reasonableness of medical bills constitutes an abuse of discretion, requiring reversal of summary judgment.
[2] Summary judgment is improper when a party submits a timely and relevant affidavit that raises a genuine issue of material fact regarding the reasonableness of medical exp…
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“it was an abuse of discretion to exclude UAIC's conflicting affidavit on whether the medical bills at issue were reasonable in price”
Establishes the core holding that exclusion of the affidavit was improper
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUAIC challenged medical bills submitted by Hallandale Open MRI, LLC for MRI services. The trial court granted the Provider's Motion for Summary Judgme…
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.
Before: TRAWICK, WALSH, and BEOVIDES, JJ
PER CURIAM.
Filing # 111615918 E-Filed 08/11/2020 03:08:47 PM [*2] [*2]
United Auto Insurance Company (“UAIC”) appeals the trial court’s order granting final summary judgment on behalf of Hallandale Open MRI, LLC. (“Provider”). Here, the trial court rejected the conflicting affidavit offered by UAIC of Denorah Lang, and summary judgment was granted on the Provider’s Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Reasonableness1. As this panel and the majority of prior panels from this Court have found, it was an abuse of discretion to exclude UAIC’s conflicting affidavit on whether the medical bills at issue were reasonable in price. Taking UAIC’s excluded affidavit into account, it was error to grant summary judgment. See United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Miami-Dade MRI a/a/o Bermudez, 2018-164 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. June 3, 2020); State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. Gables Insurance Recovery a/a/o Yuderis Rego, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 860a (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Nov. 20, 2019); United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Open MRI of Miami Dade, Ltd. a/a/o Rosa Castillo, Case No. 2017-326-AP-01 (Fla. 11th Cir Ct. Nov. 6, 2019); United Automobile Insurance Co., Appellant, v. Miami Dade County MRI, Corp. a/a/o Marta Figueredo, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 506b (Fla. 11th Cir. App. July 30, 2019); United Automobile Insurance Co., Appellant, v. Miami Dade County MRI, Corp. a/a/o Javier Rodriguez, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 225c (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. July 25, 2019); United Automobile Insurance Co., Appellant, v. Miami Dade County MRI, Corp. a/a/o 1 Appellant, UAIC, stipulated to the issues of Relatedness and Medical Necessity. [*3] [*3] Rene Dechard, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 226a (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct., August 12, 2019); United Automobile Insurance Co., Appellant, v. Millennium Radiology, LLC a/a/o Javier Rodriguez, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 911b (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. July 19, 2019).
Accordingly, the summary judgment and final judgment entered below are hereby REVERSED, and this cause is REMANDED to the trial court.
Appellee’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is DENIED. Appellant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is conditionally GRANTED (conditioned upon Appellant ultimately prevailing and the enforceability of the proposal for settlement) and REMANDED to the trial court to fix amount.
COPIES FURNISHED TO COUNSEL
OF RECORD AND TO ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL
[*4] Copies Furnished to: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]