ROIG Logo ROIG Logo ROIG Logo
ROIG Logo
ROIG Offices
Search
  • ROIG WIRE BLOG
  • eBRIEFCASE
  • CONTACT US
Menu
  • Practices
  • Our People
  • About Us
  • Diversity
  • News & Events
  • Offices
  • Careers
  • ROIG Wire
  • Contact Us
  • Practices
  • Our People
  • About Us
  • Offices
  • News & Events
  • Diversity
Minority Owned & Diversity Focused

News

sending a different message
  • News
  • Alerts
  • Articles
  • Successes
  • Events
  • Media
    Mentions

Florida Supreme Court Allstate Fee Schedule Litigation: Shall We Read The Tea Leaves?

January 12, 2017

The Florida Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Allstate Insurance Company v. Orthopedic Specialists, No. SC15-2298. At issue was an appeal of a ruling that it wrongfully limited its reimbursements under Medicare fee schedules for motorists’ personal injury protection (PIP) claims.

Allstate's policy language has been found to be exceedingly clear and concise by the majority of appellate courts across the state. A ruling affirming the Fourth District Court of Appeals decision would only serve to blindside Florida's citizens with additional bills for costly co-payments while also limiting the amount of coverage available to them.

While we wait for a final opinion, industry professionals have been closely watching the court for any and all clues. Politics of the high court aside, what “shall” we analyze to determine how the justices will rule?

One such clue seems to be overlooked, yet is hiding in plain sight. On the very day that the court heard oral argument in Allstate v. Orthopedic Specialists the court issued a Per Curiam Opinion amending the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure in which the word "shall" was stricken over 200 times. See In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure No. SC16-155. Ironically and perhaps persuasively, the court writes unanimously that "[t]he amendments shall become effective January 1, 2017, at 12:01 a.m." (emphasis mine.)

More recently, numerous Per Curiam Opinions amending various procedural and administrative rules have been issued. They have seen the court continue to favor “shall”. Amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules of Appellate Procedure, Code of Judicial Conduct and Small Claims Rules did not remove any "shall" provisions.

Pouring over minor amendments by the high court with no clear answer, perhaps we are left to channel Judge May’s epic dissent in the Fourth District Court of Appeals Opinion in which she found Allstate’s policy language to be unambiguous and compliant. While accusing the medical providers of leading the majority down the yellow brick road she writes frustratingly, “As the Pope once asked Michelangelo during the painting of the Sistine Chapel: “When will there be an end?”

We “shall” know soon.

  • PDF
Add to eBriefcase
Share
Media Contact
Celina Metlick
Practice Development & Marketing Manager
954.462.0330
cmetlick@roiglawyers.com
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Contact Us
  • Site Map
  • Careers
  • Disclaimer

© 2021 Roig Lawyers. All Rights Reserved.

Designed and Developed by Greenfield/Belser

Your eBriefcase

Welcome to the eBriefcase Management Center. This function allows you to compile selected pages to your personalized eBriefcase, where you may add to, delete or drag to reorder items. Once assembled, you can create a PDF of your eBriefcase. Click on the eBriefcase link at the top right of the page to open your collection of pages.

Your list is empty.
    Create PDF