County
Civil Court: INSURANCE – PIP benefits – effective date of section
627.736(5)(b)(5), MRI billing and payment practices, is June 19, 2001 – appellant
is unable to show beyond all reasonable doubt that this statute conflicts
with some designation provision of the constitution – Legislature had a legitimate
purpose for providing a separate method for MRI billing and payment practices
– Order affirmed. Gainesville Open
MRI Center, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 03-0980CI-88B (
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND
APPELLATE DIVISION
GAINESVILLE OPEN MRI CENTER, INC.,
on behalf of Justin Sipe,
Appellant,
vs.
Appeal No. 03-0980CI-88B
UCN522003AP000980XXXXCV
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellee.
_________________________________________/
Opinion filed _______________________
Appeal from Final Judgment
County Judge Henry Andringa
Angela M. Stone, Esquire
Attorney for Appellant
Charles W. Hall, Esquire
Peter J. Valeta, Esquire
Attorneys for Appellee
THIS CAUSE came before the Court
on appeal, filed by Gainesville Open MRI Center, Inc. (
The underlying action arose from an automobile accident, on September
13, 2000, involving Sipe, who was covered under an insurance policy issued
by Allstate that provided Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits. Sipe sought medical treatment for his injuries.
On March 22, 2002,
Both parties filed competing Motions for Summary Judgment and a Joint Stipulation of Facts providing that the only issue for the trial court to determine was the effective date of Florida Statutes, § 627.736(5)(b)(5). The trial court found that the effective date of the statute was June 19, 2001, and entered Final Judgment in favor of Allstate. Upon stipulation of the parties, the trial court certified the following question as one of great public importance: “whether the 2001 amendment to Section 627.736(5)(b)(5), Florida Statutes, enacted in Chapter 2001-271, became effective on June 19, 2001, the date that the act was signed by the Governor or on October 1, 2001, the date referenced in Section 11(3), Laws of Florida Chapter 2001-271?” By Order of the Court, entered January 16, 2003, the Second District Court of Appeal declined to exercise its jurisdiction to review the certified question.
On appeal before this Court, Gainesville raises four issues: (1) must a statute be considered in its entirety when interpreting one section of it; (2) does a trial court have to consider a memorandum which interprets a statute, when the memorandum was written by a department that is not charged with enforcing the statute in question; (3) is it unconstitutional to interpret a statute to implement a price control for one type of diagnostic testing, but no other types of diagnostic testing, without a rational basis for doing so; and, (4) is it reversible error for a trial court to consider unauthenticated documents in ruling on a Motion for Summary Judgment.
In addressing the first two issues, the Court finds that the Third District Court of Appeal, in the case of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. West Gables Open MRI Services, Inc., 846 So.2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), has squarely held that the effective date of section 627.736(5)(b)(5) is June 19, 2001. As stated above, the Second District Court of Appeal declined to exercise its jurisdiction to review the identical issue and there are no other appellate court decisions on point. Hence, this Court is obligated to follow the Third District’s West Gables holding in affirming the trial court’s Final Judgment. See Chapman v. Pinellas County, 423 So.2d 578, 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)(holding that the trial court is obligated to follow decisions of other District Courts of Appeal in the state in the absence of conflicting authority and where the appellate court in its own district has not decided the issue). Further, in evaluating the fourth issue, the Court finds that to the extent to trial court relied on unauthenticated documents in making its decision, it is harmless error in view of the West Gables decision. See Chrysler v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 627 So.2d 31, 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(stating that an error is harmful where there is a reasonable probability that a different result would have been reached but for the error committed).
In reviewing the merits of the third issue, the Court finds that Gainesville
did argue that section 627.736(5)(b) was unconstitutional in its Memorandum
of Law filed in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. However, this Court’s review is specifically
limited to section 627.736(5)(b)(5), the subject of the underlying proceedings
and this appeal. Without citing to
any supporting authority,
As recognized by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in
Therefore, it is,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Final Judgment is affirmed.
DONE AND
ORDERED in Chambers, at
___________________________________
DAVID A. DEMERS
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division
Copies furnished to:
Judge Henry J. Andringa
Angela M. Stone, Esquire
Charles W. Hall, Esquire
Peter J. Valeta, Esquire