UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
MILLENNIUM RADIOLOGY, LLC, D/B/A MILLENNIUM OPEN MRI, A/A/O KEVIN BLANCO
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 Millennium Radiology, a medical provider and assignee of an insured, in a first-party personal injury protection action. The trial court applied collateral estoppel based on a prior jury determination regarding the reasonableness of Millennium Radiology's MRI charges, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the party identity element of collateral estoppel was not satisfied.
The court reversed the summary judgment, holding that Millennium Radiology's identity is not the same from case to case because it derives its identity from the insured assignor. Consequently, the identity of parties element required for collateral estoppel was not satisfied, and the doctrine could not be applied.
[1] A medical provider that is an assignee of insurance benefits derives its legal identity from the insured assignor for purposes of the collateral estoppel doctrine, and th…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Millennium Radiology's identity is not the same from case to case, as it draws its identity from the insured, its assignor.”
Court's explanation of why the provider's identity changes across cases involving different insureds.
United Auto disputed the reasonableness of Millennium Radiology's charge for an MRI procedure performed on insured Kevin Blanco. The trial court grant…
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 Identity Of Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed March 16, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-429 Lower Tribunal No. 13-2264 SP ________________
United Automobile Insurance Company,
Appellant,
vs.
Millennium Radiology, LLC d/b/a Millennium Open MRI, a/a/o Kevin Blanco, Appellee. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Natalie Moore, Judge. Michael J. Neimand, for appellant. David B. Pakula, P.A., and David B. Pakula (Pembroke Pines); Marks & Fleischer, P.A., and Gary Marks (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee. Before SCALES, LINDSEY and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Appellant United Automobile Insurance Company, an insurer, challenges a final summary judgment in favor of Millennium Radiology, LLC, a medical provider and assignee of the insured, Kevin Blanco, in a first-party personal injury protection action.
Below, United Auto disputed the reasonableness of Millennium Radiology’s charge for an MRI procedure. The trial court granted summary judgment to Millennium Radiology on the basis of collateral estoppel, finding that in a prior PIP lawsuit between the parties, a jury had made the determination that the amount charged for the MRI procedure was reasonable. On appeal, United Auto argues that the parties in the respective lawsuits are not identical because Millennium Radiology received assignment from different insureds, and thus, the “identity” element of the collateral estoppel doctrine is not satisfied.
We recently decided this issue in United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Millennium Radiology, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D175, 2022 WL 107604 at *3 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 12, 2022), where we held that Millennium Radiology’s identity is not the same from case to case, as it draws its identity from the insured, its assignor. We recognize that the trial court did not have the benefit of this opinion at the time it entered judgment in the instant case; nevertheless, we reverse the final summary judgment because the identity of the parties did not exist to warrant the application of collateral estoppel.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)