Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

June 22, 2018 by Jennifer Kennedy

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Charge for electrodes pursuant to CPT code A4556 is covered under PIP statute

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 40a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2601GIL

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Charge for electrodes pursuant to CPT code A4556 is covered under PIP statute

FLORIDA PAIN AND WELLNESS CENTERS, INC., (a/a/o Maria Gil), Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County. Civil Division. Case No. 37-CC-017980. March 13, 2018. Gaston J. Fernandez, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick, Patrick Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for Plaintiff. Anthony Parrino, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS MATTER having come before the court on March 6, 2018 on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The court having considered both parties’ Motions, the arguments presented by the parties, applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised, finds,

1. This is a PIP breach of contract case solely concerning whether a $20.00 charge for electrodes pursuant to CPT code A4556 is covered under the PIP statute.

2. This court adopts the ruling in Florida Injury Kissimmee, LLC (a/a/o Theresa Miranda v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 191b (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. City. Ct., Broward Cty., December 4, 2015, Robert W. Lee, Judge), wherein the court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and found that CPT code A4556 (electrodes/EMS pads) was covered under the No-Fault Law.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is HEREBY GRANTED.

4. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is HEREBY DENIED.

5. The court reserves jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs.

* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business losses — Business interruption — All-risk commercial policy providing coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to” property or “direct physical loss or damage to” property does not insure against losses and expenses incurred by business as result of COVID-19 — Under Florida law there is no coverage because COVID-19 did not cause tangible alteration of the insured properties
  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business income losses — Trial court’s finding that policy covering loss of business income due to the suspension of operations caused by “direct physical loss or damage to property” required some tangible alteration to insured property comported with common meaning of its terms and context of policy as a whole — Policy did not cover economic losses insured suffered when it suspended its operations due to COVID-19 pandemic — No error in dismissing with prejudice insured’s petition for declaratory relief and damages
  • Torts — Negligent security — Sovereign immunity — Agency — Limited immunity — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action brought against company which contracted with county to provide security services and its employee — Defendant company was entitled to limited sovereign immunity under 768.28(5) where county asserted a degree of control over defendant’s employees — Fact that defendant’s employee was working alone rather than side-by-side with county employees did not change level of control county had over defendant employee as evidenced by contract between county and defendant — Absolute immunity under section 768.28(9) applied to defendant employee, but did not apply to defendant company because it is a corporation — No abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint to add count for punitive damages where record is devoid of evidence that defendant employee engaged in intentional misconduct or gross negligence
  • Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Assignee’s action against insurer to recover payment for construction work performed on insured property following hurricane damage — Court adopts magistrate’s report and recommendation concluding that Section 627.7152(10), Florida Statutes, which repeals assignee’s standing to recover attorney’s fees under section 627.428, does not apply in instant case where both issuance of policy and assignment agreement predated effective date of statute — Whether relevant date for purposes of applying statute is date policy was issued or date assignment agreement was entered into need not be resolved under circumstances — Motion to strike plaintiff’s claims for attorney’s fees is denied
  • Torts — Dog bite — Negligence — Sheriffs — Sovereign immunity — Action alleging deputy sheriff was negligent in handling K-9 that bit plaintiff while attending a public event — Trial court erred in dismissing complaint against sheriff on ground that action was barred by sovereign immunity — Although a plaintiff may not rely on section 767.04 when suing a state agency for a dog bite because it is a strict liability statute, a plaintiff may bring such a suit in common-law negligence — Complaint adequately stated a cause of action for negligence under common law principles — Court rejects argument that plaintiff placed himself in zone of risk by approaching area occupied by deputy and police dog, and that because deputy did not move in proximity to plaintiff there was no zone of risk created by conduct of deputy — Deputy created the zone of risk by patrolling the venue with his K-9 — Whether the deputy was walking around or standing still was irrelevant — Because plaintiff was in a public location he had the right to walk where he wanted, including right up to the deputy, and, unless warned by the deputy to move away, plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the dog would not bite him — Lawsuit was not barred by sovereign immunity where, although the decision to patrol the public venue with K-9s may have been a discretionary function, the act of patrolling the venue with K-9s was operational

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982