PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
COLUMNA INC./THOMAS ROUSH, M.D., A/A/O ANDREA MEJIA
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.
Progressive American Insurance Company appeals a summary judgment requiring it to pay 80% of the statutory fee schedule for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits rather than 80% of the amount billed by the health care provider. The trial court relied on Geico v. Accident & Injury Clinic Inc., but the Florida Supreme Court's subsequent decision in MRI Associates of Tampa, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. altered the legal landscape.
The court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for the trial court to reconsider the parties' competing motions in light of the Florida Supreme Court's recent decision in MRI Associates of Tampa, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., as that decision materially altered the applicable law.
[1] When appellate review reveals that a trial court's summary judgment was based on precedent subsequently superseded by higher court authority, reversal and remand is appro…
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 intelligenceAndrea Mejia was insured by Progressive. Columna Inc./Thomas Roush, M.D. (a health care provider assigned Mejia's PIP benefits) billed for services an…
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
Opinion filed March 23, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-286 Lower Tribunal Nos. 19-7905 SP & 20-251AP ________________
Progressive American Insurance Company,
Appellant,
vs.
Columna Inc./Thomas Roush, M.D., a/a/o Andrea Mejia, Appellee. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Michaelle Gonzalez-Paulson, Judge. deBeaubien, Simmons, Knight, Mantzaris & Neal, LLP, and Kenneth P. Hazouri (Orlando), for appellant. Landau & Associates, P.A., and Todd A. Landau and Matthew Emanuel (Sunrise), for appellee. Before LOGUE, SCALES and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Appellant Progressive American Insurance Company (“Progressive”), the defendant below, challenges a final summary judgment entered in favor of appellee, plaintiff below, Columna Inc./Thomas Roush, M.D, a health care provider that was assigned the personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits of Progressive’s Insured, Andrea Mejia. The parties’ competing summary judgment motions were heard by the trial court on July 27, 2020, and, in reliance upon Geico v. Accident & Injury Clinic Inc., 290 So. 3d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), the trial court determined that Progressive was required to pay 80% of the amount adopted in the statutory fee schedule,1 rather than 80% of the amount billed by appellee.
Neither the trial court, nor the parties, though, had the benefit of the Florida Supreme Court’s recent opinion in MRI Associates of Tampa, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 46 Fla. L. Weekly S379, 2021 WL 5832298 (Fla. Dec. 9, 2021) (“MRI”). Although we employ a de novo standard of review when reviewing a trial court’s adjudication of a summary judgment motion pertaining to an interpretation of the PIP statute,2 we prefer here to allow the trial court, in the first instance, to adjudicate the parties’ 1 See § 627.736(5)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2018). 2 Rivera v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 317 So. 3d 197, 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).
competing motions in light of MRI,3 and we express no opinion on the merits of those motions. We, therefore, reverse the challenged judgment and remand for the trial court to consider the parties’ competing motions in light of MRI.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Hallandale Beach Orthopedics, Inc., 290 So. 3d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
- Rivera v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 317 So. 3d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Kagan Jugan & Assocs., P. A., 46 Fla. L. Weekly S379 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
- Alvarez v. Food Lion, Inc., 805 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)