GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY
v.
TOTAL ORTHOPAEDICS CARE P.A. A/A/O VALENTA AUBERRY
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.
GEICO Indemnity Company appeals a county court judgment against it in a medical billing dispute. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reverses and remands, directing the lower court to determine whether billed amounts fell below 80% of 200% of the statutory fee schedule, relying on precedent established in companion cases.
The court reverses the judgment and remands the case, requiring the lower court to determine whether the amount billed was less than 80% of 200% of the statutory fee schedule. If so, judgment may be entered against GEICO in accordance with the Muransky precedent.
[1] A judgment may be reversed and remanded for further proceedings when the appellate court determines that the lower court erred in its initial ruling.
[2] On remand, a court must determine, or parties must stipulate, whether a billed amount is less than 80% of 200% of the statutory fee schedule to potentially enter judgment…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“On remand, the court must determine, or the parties must stipulate, whether the amount billed was less than 80% of 200% of the statutory fee schedule.”
Establishes the critical legal standard the lower court must apply on remand to determine liability
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves a dispute between GEICO Indemnity Company and Total Orthopaedics Care P.A. regarding medical billing. The dispute was litigated in …
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Fee Schedule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Geico Indemnity Company appeals the county court’s judgment against it. For the reasons we explained in Geico Indemnity Co. v. Muransky Chiropractic P.A., No. 4D21-457, 2021 WL 2584107 (Fla. 4th DCA June 24, 2021), and in our opinion in Geico General Ins. Co. v. Hallandale Beach Orthopedics, Inc., 4D21-206 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug. 18, 2021), we reverse and remand. On remand, the court must determine, or the parties must stipulate, whether the amount billed was less than 80% of 200% of the statutory fee schedule. If so, the court may enter judgment against Geico in accordance with Muransky.
Reversed and remanded.
DAMOORGIAN, KUNTZ and ARTAU, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Hallandale Beach Orthopedics, Inc., 290 So. 3d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…P statute authorizes insurers to limit reimbursement to 80% of an amount set by a fee schedule, see § 627.736(5)(a)1.a.–f., by electing to do so in its policy, see § 627.736(5)(a) 5.” Geico Indem. Co. v. Muransky Chiropractic P.A., No. 4D21-457, 2021 WL 2584107, at *3 (Fla. 4th DCA June 24, 2021). In Muransky, we held that “under the PIP statute, if the billed amounts are less than 80% of the fee schedule, the insurer may pay the billed amounts in full or pay the 80% reimbursement rate of maximum char…1 / 2