Tag Archives: Emergency Medical Condition

ROIG Lawyers Attorneys Set Precedent in Emergency Medical Condition (EMC) Personal Injury Protection Case

Paul Michael Gabe, attorney in the Miami office and Mark D. Bartle, attorney in the Deerfield Beach office, obtained a favorable ruling from the Honorable Robert W. Lee of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County on behalf of a Roig Lawyers’ client/insurer in a case of first impression. At issue was whether a post-suit payment of medical benefits is a Confession of Judgment, which would entitle Plaintiff to statutory attorney’s fees and costs.

The Plaintiff submitted medical bills to Defendant. Medical benefits were exhausted at $2,500.00 as no Emergency Medical Condition (EMC) declaration was received by Defendant. Defendant’s Explanation of Benefits indicated exhaustion of benefits due to a lack of an EMC declaration. Subsequently, Plaintiff sent a demand for additional payment. Defendant responded, clarifying that benefits were exhausted at $2,500.00 and asked Plaintiff to provide an EMC declaration. Plaintiff did not respond and later filed a lawsuit. Defendant raised exhaustion of medical benefits as a defense. On the eve of Court ordered arbitration, Plaintiff served an EMC declaration to Defendant, which was dated prior to the lawsuit. Defendant paid the remainder of the claim within thirty (30) days of receipt of the EMC declaration. Gabe and Bartle moved the Court to rule that Defendant’s post-suit payment of medical benefits is not a Confession of Judgment and that Plaintiff should not be entitled to statutory attorney’s fees and costs. The court agreed that Defendant properly exhausted benefits at $2,500.00, and properly made an additional payment upon receipt of the EMC declaration. As such, Defendant’s post-suit payment was not a Confession of Judgement.

“We are pleased with the outcome of this case and the precedent that it sets for Private Passenger Automobile (PPA) insurance companies across the state in similar cases,” said Gabe and Bartle.

Comments Off on ROIG Lawyers Attorneys Set Precedent in Emergency Medical Condition (EMC) Personal Injury Protection Case

Filed under Personal Injury Protection (PIP)

Eleventh Circuit Dismisses PIP Case Involving EMC and Massage Therapy

A class action suit filed by plaintiff Accumed Chiropractic against Progressive Select Insurance was dismissed on July 31, 2014 by Circuit Court Judge Antonio Arzola. Judge Arzola concluded that the action was inappropriate for class action treatment.

The suit was brought on behalf of plaintiff itself and two putative classes. The first class was to be anyone who was denied payment by Progressive under PIP or MedPay insurance coverage where Progressive’s denial was based on an assertion that an Emergency Medical Condition for the insured was not established.

The second class was to be defined as anyone whose PIP or MedPay claim was denied because the health care service was for massage therapy or acupuncture. Plaintiff sought both declaratory relief and damages for breach of contract.

Plaintiff stipulated at the hearing that it did not have standing to sue for MedPay benefits. As for the PIP claims, Judge Arzola found that the “necessary and individualized questions associated with the underlying PIP claims of the class will predominate in this Action.” As a matter of law, therefore, plaintiff’s case could not proceed as a class action, and the complaint was dismissed without prejudice.

The case is Accumed Chiropractic & Wellness Center, Inc. v. Progressive Select Insurance Company, Case No. 13-CA-029396 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct., July 31, 2014). Click on the link to view the court order.

Comments Off on Eleventh Circuit Dismisses PIP Case Involving EMC and Massage Therapy

Filed under Uncategorized

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Granted with Prejudice in PIP Benefits Case Involving Challenge to “Emergency Medical Condition” (EMC) Provision

In a second ruling within one week involving Florida’s amended PIP law, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a case challenging reimbursement under the amended statute’s “emergency medical condition” or “EMC” provision. See our earlier post titled Court Grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in Robbins v. Garrison P & C.

Sendy Enivert sued her auto insurance company, Progressive Select, alleging breach of contract for failing to pay her PIP benefits to a limit of $10,000. Enivert’s claim involved the newly added provision to Florida’s PIP law which limits PIP benefits depending on whether a claimant has suffered an emergency medical condition.

Plaintiff Enivert interpreted this language to mean that an insured is limited to $2,500 only if a medical provider determines that there is no emergency medical condition. She argued that because, in her case, no medical provider ever made such a determination, she was entitled to the full $10,000. In other words, because no medical provider determined that she did not have an emergency medical condition, she was entitled to full benefits.

Defendant Progressive read the statute to mean the opposite, i.e., that a medical provider must affirmatively determine that an emergency medical condition does exist in order for the insured to be eligible for reimbursement of the full amount.

The court agreed with Progressive, concluding that the PIP statute clearly indicates that a determination that a claimant has suffered an emergency medical condition is required in order to receive benefits in excess of the $2,500 limit. Since a medical provider did not determine that Enivert had an emergency medical condition, she was not entitled to the full $10,000 in benefits.

The court also looked to the legislative intent behind the PIP statute. It concluded that the clear legislative intent was to decrease PIP fraud by placing more stringent requirements in order to receive the maximum amount of benefits.

Based on the above, the court granted Progressive’s motion to dismiss Enivert’s case.

The case is Sendy Enivert v. Progressive Select Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 14-CV-80279-Ryskamp/Hopkins (S.D. Fla. July 23, 2014). Click on the link to read the court ruling.

Comments Off on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Granted with Prejudice in PIP Benefits Case Involving Challenge to “Emergency Medical Condition” (EMC) Provision

Filed under Uncategorized