UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
MILLENNIUM RADIOLOGY, LLC, A/A/O GLEYBIS NODAL DELGADO
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.
Collateral estoppel cannot be applied against a medical provider when the provider's identity changes based on different assignors across multiple cases.
[1] The identity element required for collateral estoppel is not satisfied when a medical provider's legal identity derives from different assignors in separate cases, preclu…
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's 'identity' is not the same in each of these cases against United Auto; Millennium draws its identity from its assignor from case to case. The identity element of collateral estoppel, therefore, is not satisfied.”
The court's explanation of why collateral estoppel does not apply, citing its recent decision in a related case.
United Automobile Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment in favor of Millennium Radiology regarding the reasonableness of a diagnostic test. Th…
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 Collateral Estoppel cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed July 20, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-2275 Lower Tribunal No. 13-2722-SP ________________
United Automobile Insurance Company,
Appellant,
vs.
Millennium Radiology, LLC, a/a/o Gleybis Nodal Delgado, Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Linda Singer Stein, Judge. Michael J. Neimand, for appellant. David B. Pakula, P.A. and David B. Pakula (Pembroke Pines); Marks & Fleischer, P.A. and Gary Marks (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and SCALES, and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.
United Automobile Insurance Company appeals the final judgment entered by the trial court after entry of summary judgment on the reasonableness of a diagnostic test based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. We reverse and remand consistent with our recent decision in United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC, 337 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 12, 2022) (“Millennium's ‘identity’ is not the same in each of these cases against United Auto; Millennium draws its identity from its assignor from case to case. The identity element of collateral estoppel, therefore, is not satisfied.”).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vogel v. Saunders, 92 F.2d 984 (D.C. Cir. 1937)…True, 72 N.H. 322, 56 A. 749. The absence of the fact assumed by the majority is, by the very nature of a specific legacy, conclusive against the legacy’s being specific. See Capron v. Capron, loc. cit., supra; Slade v. Talbot, 182 Mass. 256, 259, 65 N.E. 374, 94 Am.St.Rep. 653. That is to say, if the testatrix was not in the will specifying property then hers, which could be identified when she came to die, then by no possibility could the legacy be specific — unless within First National Bank of Boston…
Authorities Cited
- Murlene S. Youngblood v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am., 337 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)