STATE FARM MUTUAL
v.
GABLES INSURANCE RECOVERY
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.
State Farm appeals a summary judgment granted in favor of Gables Insurance Recovery regarding medical bill reasonableness, necessity, and relatedness. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court abused its discretion by accepting the provider's affidavits while rejecting State Farm's conflicting expert affidavits, which raised material factual disputes precluding summary judgment.
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in granting summary judgment because State Farm's affidavits were sufficient to raise disputed issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment, and it was error to accept one party's affidavits while rejecting the other's conflicting affidavits.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by accepting a plaintiff's affidavits while rejecting a defendant's conflicting affidavits on the reasonableness, relatedness, and med…
[2] Conflicting affidavits regarding the reasonableness, relatedness, and medical necessity of medical bills are sufficient to raise disputed issues of material fact, preclud…
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 accept Plaintiff/Appellee's affidavits while rejecting State Farm's conflicting affidavits on whether the medical bills at issue were reasonable in price, related and medically necessary”
Establishes the core holding that the trial court improperly weighed competing affidavits in granting summary judgment
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceState Farm sought to challenge medical bills submitted by Gables Insurance Recovery. State Farm submitted affidavits from its corporate representative…
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: WALSH, TRAWICK, and SANTOVENIA, JJ. [*2] PER CURIAM.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm") appeals a final judgment entered by the trial court on June 4, 2018 following its order granting summary judgment on behalf of Gables Insurance Recovery, Inc. ("Provider"). Here, the trial court rejected the conflicting affidavits offered by State Farm of Natasha Roger, State Farm's corporate representative and Edward A. Dauer, M.D., a radiologist regarding reasonableness, relatedness and medical necessity and summary judgment was granted on the Provider's Motion for Summary Judgment. State Farm's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied.
As this panel and the majority of prior panels from this Court have found, it was an abuse of discretion to accept Plaintiff/Appellee's affidavits while rejecting State Farm's conflicting affidavits on whether the medical bills at issue were reasonable in price, related and medically necessary. Taking State Farm's affidavits into account, it was error to grant summary judgment on behalf of the Provider as the affidavits were sufficient to raise disputed issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. See State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. Gables Insurance Recovery a/a/o Alexis Revollo, 2017-158-AP-01 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Aug. 13, 2020); United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Miami-Dade MRI a/a/o Bermudez, 2018 [*164] AP-01 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. June 3, 2020); State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. Gables [*2] [*3] 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. 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. 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. v. Miami Dade County MRI, Corp. a/a/o Rene Dechard, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 226a (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct., August 12, 2019); United Automobile Insurance Co. 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.
COPIES FURNISHED TO COUNSEL
OF RECORD AND TO ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL [*3] [*4] Copies Furnished to: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]