The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . . § 627.736. . . .
. . . . § 627.736(1) (mandating that automobile insurers provide PIP benefits "to a limit of $ 10,000"). . . . See id. at § 627.736(1)(a)(3) - (4) ; Robbins v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. . . . Stat. § 627.736 by limiting benefits to $ 2,500"); accord, e.g., Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. . . .
. . . Improper Pre-Suit Notice FAIC argues MSPA lacks standing because it did not comply with § 627.736, Florida . . . Stat., § 627.736(10). The notice "may not be sent until the claim is overdue." Id. . . . MSPA's demand letter even specified that it is "a formal demand letter under § 627.736(10)." . . . action seeks no damages whatsoever, [so] it is not an 'action for benefits.' ") (citing § 627.736, Fla . . . Stat., § 627.736(10). The demand letter does not discuss benefits with specificity. . . .
. . . . § 627.736(1) (mandating that automobile insurers provide PIP benefits "to a limit of $ 10,000"). . . . See id. at § 627.736(1)(a)(3)-(4); Robbins v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. . . . Stat. § 627.736 by limiting benefits to $ 2,500"); accord, e.g., Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. . . .
. . . denying Miami Dade County MRI Corporation's motion for attorney's fees under sections 627.428(1) and 627.736 . . . Dade County MRI Corporation's motion for appellate attorney's fees filed under sections 627.428(1) and 627.736 . . .
. . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(h) ; Fla. Stat. § 627.736(1)(a) 2.e.(i)-(iii); see also Miami Dolphins, Ltd. v. . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(b) 1.b. . . . Stat. § 627.736(1)(a) 2.e.(i)-(iii). Fla. Stat. § 627.736(1)(a) 2.e. . . . Stat. § 627.736(1)(a) 5. . . . Stat. § 627.736(1)(a) 2.e. . . .
. . . FROM THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MEDICAL CHARGES BEFORE APPLYING THE REIMBURSEMENT LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 627.736 . . .
. . . be applied before or after medical charges are reduced under the reimbursement limitation in section 627.736 . . . Section 627.736(5)(a)1. authorizes insurers to "limit reimbursement to 80 percent of" a "schedule of . . . section 627.736(1). . . . an automobile accident. § 627.736(1)(a), Fla. . . . It is correct that the "schedule of maximum charges" in section 627.736(5)(a) 1. . . .
. . . . § 627.736, etseq., Fla. Stat. For this reason, we reverse. I. BACKGROUND A. . . . Id. § 627.736(4), Fla. Stat. . . . . § 627.736(6) & (7), Fla. Stat. . . . . § 627.736(4), Fla. Stat. . . . See § 627.736, etseq., Fla. Stat. . . .
. . . Co., 35 So.3d 873, 876 (Fla. 2010) ("The dispositive issue before this Court is whether section 627.736 . . .
. . . the amount paid by Progressive pursuant to the statutory reimbursement limitation provided in section 627.736 . . . FROM THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MEDICAL CHARGES BEFORE APPLYING THE REIMBURSEMENT LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 627.736 . . .
. . . The State Farm policy tracks the method of reimbursement calculation outlined in section 627.736(5)(a . . . ) and the limitation set forth in section 627.736(5)(a)(1). . . . (5)(a) or the schedule of maximum charges method of calculation under section 627.736(5)(a)(1) and that . . . To make this election, the insurer must provide notice to the insured in the policy. § 627.736(5)(a)( . . . Relying on the permissive language of section 627.736(5)(a)(2), the supreme court explained that an " . . .
. . . . § 627.736(1)(a). . . . Stat. § 627.736(1)(a). . . . Id. § 627.736(5)(a). . . . Id. § 627.736(5)(a) 1. . . . Id. § 627.736(5)(a) 4. . . .
. . . . § 627.736 (2012 to date). Fla. . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(a). . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(a) 1.f.(I). . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(a) 1.f.(I). . . . Formerly subsection 627.736(5)(a)(1) under the 2008 version of the PIP statute. . . .
. . . INSURED'S EXPENSES AND LOSSES PRIOR TO APPLYING ANY PERMISSIVE FEE SCHEDULE PAYMENT LIMITATION FOUND IN § 627.736 . . . We rephrase the certified question as follows: PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 627.736 AND 627.739, FLORIDA STATUTES . . . THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF A PROVIDER'S INVOICES TO AN INSURED PRIOR TO APPLYING ANY FEE SCHEDULE FOUND IN § 627.736 . . .
. . . an insured's deductible be applied to "100 percent of the expenses and losses described in section 627.736 . . . insurer to (1) reduce a provider's claim to an amount allowed under a fee schedule found at section 627.736 . . . The deductible amount must be applied to 100 percent of the expenses and losses described in s. 627.736 . . . THE PIP STATUTE ( § 627.736 ) Section 627.736 is entitled "Required personal injury protection benefits . . . Subsection 627.736(5) covers medical "charges." . . . SAID BILL IS REDUCED BY ANY APPLICABLE STATUTORY REDUCTION(S) AS CONTAINED IN FLORIDA STATUTE SECTION 627.736 . . . We rephrase the certified question as follows: PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 627.736 AND 627.739, FLORIDA STATUTES . . . THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF A PROVIDER'S INVOICES TO AN INSURED PRIOR TO APPLYING ANY FEE SCHEDULE FOUND IN § 627.736 . . .
. . . (citing § 627.736(5)(a) 2., Fla. . . . Id. at 156 (citing § 627.736(5)(a) 2.f., Fla. Stat. (2008) ). . . . (citing § 627.736(5)(a) 5., Fla. Stat. (2008) ). . . . Under the second method-found within section 627.736(5)(a) 1. . . . . § 627.736(5)(a) 2., Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .
. . . See § 627.736(1)(a), Fla. . . . See § 627.736(5)(a)(2)(f) (allowing an insurer to limit reimbursement to 80 percent of "the allowable . . .
. . . FROM THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MEDICAL CHARGES BEFORE APPLYING THE REIMBURSEMENT LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 627.736 . . .
. . . Section 627.736 contains several references to expenses, almost all of which are described as or used . . . Section 627.736(1)(a), (1)(b), & (6)(b), Fla. Stat. (footnote omitted). . . . Section 627.739(2)'s references to section 627.736 necessarily include references to the reimbursement . . . limitation of section 627.736(5)(a) 1.b. and, therefore, "100 percent of the expenses ... described . . . in s. 627.736" includes the reimbursement limitation set forth in the current section 627.736(5)(a) 1 . . . (5)(a)1.b. _________ $1,335.75 × 80% Applying section 627.736(5)(a)1. _________ $1,068.60 Amount Due . . . Progressive remitted payment, but it used a different payment methodology when applying section 627.736 . . . s reimbursement limitation provision: $2,781.00 Total hospital charge × 75% Applying section 627.736( . . . "Expenses and losses" are not defined in the statute, but they are described in section 627.736(1). . . . Section 627.736(1)(a) specifically provides that the insured may be entitled to "[e]ighty percent of . . .
. . . . § 627.736(5)(a)(3). . . . Ann. § 627.736(a)(5). . . . Sec. 627.736(1)(a). . . .
. . . . §§ 627.733, 627.736(1) (requiring owners or registrants of motor vehicles to obtain personal injury . . .
. . . sufficiently specific to limit provider reimbursements to 80% of the maximum charges described in section 627.736 . . .
. . . Moreover, the parties agree that and that it was mailed in an effort to comply with § 627.736(5)(a) 5 . . . Within the Policy, GEICO also elected the fee schedules referred to in Florida Statute § 627.736(5)(a . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(a) (emphasis added). . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(a) 5. The former is mandatory while the latter is permissive. . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(a) 5. . . .
. . . As codified in section 627.736(8), Florida Statutes, this legislative change included an amendment specifically . . . Florida’s PIP laws also contain an attorney’s fees provision, see § 627.736(8), Fla. . . .
. . . . § 627.736(12), which similarly provides an insurer a “cause of action against any person convicted . . . Ann. § 627.736(5)(b)(l)(c) ("An insurer or insured is not required to pay a claim or charges.. .To any . . .
. . . . § 627.736(5)(a) and GEI-CO’a endorsement, FLPIP (01-13) (“Endorsement”). See id. ¶¶ 7, 10. . . . Court on behalf of itself and a class of individuals, asking the Court to “interpret[] Florida Statute 627.736 . . . argues it would be precluded from availing itself of numerous defenses available under Florida Statute § 627.736 . . . In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asked the Court to interpret Florida Statute § 627.736 in conjunction . . .
. . . Pursuant to section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2011), an insurer may elect one of two methods to calculate . . . insured any amount exceeding the payment made from the insurer, also known as “balance billing.” § 627.736 . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(a)2. (2008-2012) in the policy.” . . . As noted above, under section 627.736, there are two available methods for an insurer to calculate policy . . . medical provider is limited to the reimbursement paid by the insurer and cannot bill the patient. § 627.736 . . .
. . . The resolution of this case, Plaintiffs contend, turns solely on the interpretation of section 627.736 . . . Stat. § 627.736(1)(a)3. (2013) (emphasis added). . . . Stat. § 627.736(1)(a)4. (2013) (emphasis added). . . . PIP stands for personal injury protection under section 627.736 of the Florida Statutes (2013), which . . . Stat. § 627.736(1)(a)3. (2013) (emphasis added). . . . .
. . . not provide notice that the insurance company elected to apply the fee schedules pursuant to section 627.736 . . . Medicare fee schedules, but instead used a fact-based determination of a reasonable fee based on section 627.736 . . . Under section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2008), the PIP statute, an insurer may elect to calculate medical . . . can elect to apply the Medicare fee schedules, as set forth in subsection (5)(a)2. of the statute. § 627.736 . . . (5)(a)2., Florida Statutes, but rather the fact-dependent methodology of section 627.736(5)(a)1., Florida . . .
. . . (6)(c), Florida Statutes (2015), and requires us to examine additional provisions of section 627.736, . . . Relevant to this case, section 627.736(5) addresses the reasonableness of charges for treatment, providing . . . Additionally, section 627.736(6), addresses discovery of facts about an injured person, providing: (6 . . . )(c) is limited to the production of the documents described in section 627.736(6)(b). . . . (5) is inapplicable to discovery sought under section 627.736(6)(b).” . . .
. . . Progressive based its refusal to pay in excess of $2,500 in benefits on section 627.736(l)(a)4., which . . . Relevant Statutory Backdrop For decades, in addition to providing death benefits under section 627.736 . . . (l)(a) and for an insured’s loss of income and earning capacity under section 627.736(l)(b). . . . The Legislature accomplished this change by adding two subsections to section 627.736(l)(a) that are . . . relevant to this case: (i) section 627.736(l)(a)3. specifically identifies which medical professionals . . .
. . . . § 627.736(l)(a). . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(b)(1)(b).... . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(d). . . . respect to a bill or statement that does not substantially meet the applicable requirements of [section 627.736 . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(b)(l)(d). B & A Diagnostic, Inc., 145 F.Supp.3d at 1163. . . .
. . . Compare § 627.736(5)(a)l., Fla. Stat. (2009), with § 627.736(5)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2009). . . . Id at 154 (quoting § 627.736(5)(a)2., Fla. Stat.). . . . Compare § 627.736(5)(a)2.a., Fla. Stat. . . . See § 627.736(5)(a)2., Fla. Stat. . . . (emphasis added)); § 627.736(5)(a)3.-5., Fla. Stat. . . . amounts payable under this coverage shall be subject to any and all limitations, authorized by section 627.736 . . . See § 627.736(5)(a)2.f. The physician further is prohibited from balance billing their patients. . . . See § 627.736(5)(a)5. In short, the fee schedule amount is a “take it- or leave it” proposition. . . .
. . . Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736 . . .
. . . Central Florida, LLP, that timely submits its bill within the thirty-day window contemplated by section 627.736 . . . emergency service provider submits its claims within the 30-day reserve period provided in section 627.736 . . .
. . . . § 627.736(l)(a) (2007). . . .
. . . initially denied the benefits in error, the insured then requested attorney’s fees pursuant to sections 627.736 . . . The county court denied the fees because, pursuant to section 627.736, the insurance company paid the . . .
. . . . §§ 627.733 and 627.736, Fla. Stat. . . .
. . . regarding the sufficiency of PIP policy language following the Legislature’s amendments to section 627.736 . . . underlying legal issue: the sufficiency of PIP policy language following the 2008 amendments to section 627.736 . . . on notice that reimbursement of medical bills will be limited by the statutory schedule in section 627.736 . . .
. . . Progressive should have “clearly and unambiguously” selected the fee schedule limitation under section 627.736 . . . Section 627.736(5)(a)l., Florida Statutes (2008), provides that medical services providers may only charge . . . federal and state medical fee schedules applicable to automobile and other insurance coverages.” § 627.736 . . . in the instant case, Progressive may not avail itself of the fee schedule limitation under section 627.736 . . . not precluded from having an opportunity to litigate the reasonableness of EPCF’s bill under section 627.736 . . .
. . . USAA moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, finding that the provisions of section 627.736 . . . sickness, disease, or death arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle.” § 627.736 . . . Section 627.736(l)(a)(3)-(4), Florida Statutes (2013), states, 3. . . . Stat. § 627.736, as amended, limits an insurer’s obligation to provide personal injury protection benefits . . . We find that USAA had the right, pursuant to section 627.736(6)(b), to request a written report of the . . .
. . . Section 627.736(3), Florida Statutes (2014), governs an insured’s rights to recover special damages in . . . right to recover any damages for which personal injury protection benefits are paid or payable.” § 627.736 . . . Farrow, 880 So.2d 557, 560 (Fla.2004) (“[Sjection 627.736(3) dictates that an insured plaintiff has ‘ . . .
. . . Allstate paid the bills based upon the fee schedules established in section 627.736(5)(a)(2)(f), Florida . . . amounts payable under this coverage shall be subject to any and all limitations, authorized by section 627.736 . . . law, including but not limited to, all fee schedules,” Clearly and Unambiguously Elect the Section 627.736 . . . Section 627.736(5)(a)(2)(f) provides: (2) The Insurer may limit reimbursement to 80 percent of the following . . . Allstate argues that the language “subject to any and all limitations, authorized by section 627.736 . . .
. . . Count I — Class Claim for Declaratory Relief Florida Statute section 627.736(10)(a) requires that an . . . (5)(a), or the schedule of maximum charges under section 627.736(5)(a)(l)(a through f). . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(a)(5); see also Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. . . . Stat. § 627.736(1)(a). . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(a)(3). . . .
. . . was filed, and received by Respondent three days after the suit was filed., USAA relies on section 627.736 . . . Likewise, USAA’s argument that PIP payments are deemed made when mailed, specifically relying upon section 627.736 . . . Section 627.736(10)(d), Florida Statutes (2012), provides that an insurer can avoid a lawsuit on an overdue . . .
. . . . § 627.736(1). . . . . § 627.736(l)(a). . . . . § 627.736(5)(a)(4). . . . not exceed the amount the person or institution customarily charges for like services or supplies.” § 627.736 . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(a). . . .
. . . instant appeal erred in holding that the benefits to be paid from the $5000 reserve imposed by section 627.736 . . . “[t]he deductible amount must be applied to 100 percent of the expenses and losses described in s. 627.736 . . .
. . . . § 627.736, or any other provisions of the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, as enacted, amended or . . . Section 627.736 provided, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) REQUIRED BENEFITS. . . . The first method, described in section 627.736(5)(a)(l), determines reasonableness by “a fact-dependent . . . See Virtual Imaging, 141 So.3d at 156 (quoting § 627.736(5)(a)(2)(f)). . . . The legislature amended section 627.736. Ch. 2012-197, § 10, at 2737-56, Laws of Fla. . . .
. . . issued payments in amounts of $2,873.12 fop PIP benefits with applicable interest, pursuant to section 627.736 . . . Because section 627.736(4)(b)(6) allows an insurer to dispute the reasonableness of charges at any time . . .
. . . the petitioner, Progressive American Insurance Company (“Progressive”), in accordance with section 627.736 . . . instant appeal erred in holding that the benefits to be paid from the $5000 reserve imposed by section 627.736 . . . “[t]he deductible amount must be applied to 100 percent of the expenses and- losses described in s. 627.736 . . .
. . . emergency service provider submits its claims within .the 30-day reserve period provided in section 627.736 . . .
. . . Physicians (“FEP”), that timely submits its bill within the thirty-day window contemplated by section 627.736 . . . $250 deductible to FEP’s claim and paid FEP the net balance it was entitled to receive under section 627.736 . . .
. . . . § 627.736(1)(a) (2015). The Florida legislature amended the No-Fault Law in 2012. See 2012 Fla. . . . Those amendments added two subparagraphs to § 627.736(1)(a), one requiring: 3. . . . Stat. § 627.736(l)(a)(3)-(4) (emphases added). . . . Stat. § 627.736,. as amended, Garrison and Progressive limited Robbins’ and Enivert’s benefits to $2,500 . . . Stat. § 627.736 by limiting benefits to $2,500. . . .
. . . . § 627.736(1)(a). . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(b)(l)(b). . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(a). . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(d). . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(b)(1)(d). . . .
. . . We are asked to determine whether section - 627.736 permits State Farm to request discovery about the . . . We further find that section 627.736(5) is inapplicable to .discovery sought under section 627.736(6) . . . As to the interplay between section 627.736(5) and section 627.736(6), Shands Jacksonville Medical Center . . . a healthcare provider is required to provide as delineated in section 627.736(6).” . . . to discovery ¡requests under section 627.736(6)(b). . . .
. . . Emergency Physicians of Central Florida, LLP (“EPCF”), which submits bills in accordance with section 627.736 . . . Section 627.736(4)(c) requires the insurer, upon being notified of an accident, to reserve $5,000 of . . . Stat. § 627.736(4)(c). . . . There is, however, an exception for death benefits under section 627.736(l)(c), Florida Statutes. . . . See § .627.736, Fla. Stat. (2011). . . .
. . . Because the record reflects that Gonzalez failed to comply with the notice requirements of section 627.736 . . . Farm was never provided with a statement- of Mariners Hospital’s charges in compliance .with section 627.736 . . . statement State Farm received for Mariners Hospital’s medical services did not comply with - section 627.736 . . . Section 627.736(5)(d) specifically provides that “[a]ll statements and bills for medical services rendered . . . Because Gonzalez failed to comply with the notice requirements under section 627.736 and her State Farm . . .
. . . . § 627.736(l)(a) (2007)). . . . Stat. § 627.736(5).(a)(f))). . . . STATUTE § 627.736(10)7 and states that the firm has been retained to represent the providers “in their . . .
. . . . § 627.736(l)(a)(3) (the “Initial Treatment Provision”). . . . However, section 627.736(5)(a)(l) includes a permissive fee schedule which authorizes motor vehicle insurers . . . She also calculated that if Allstate had not limited payment based on § 627.736(5)(a), then the putative . . . (1)(a) and reimbursement under the statutory fee schedule in Section 627.736(5)(a) was over 35%. . . . Here, too, Plaintiff billed State Farm under the general rule in Section 627.736(l)(a). . . .
. . . Section 627.736(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2008), provides an alternative way in which “[t]he insurer . . . See § 627.736(5)(a)2., Fla. Stat.... . . . PIP statute’s basic “reasonable expenses” coverage mandate, set forth in section 627.736(1). . . . Nor does Allstate express in any way that it pay no more than FS 627.736(5)(a)(2)(a-1) allow. . . . Virtual Imaging, 141 So.3d at 154 (emphasis in original) (quoting section 627.736(5)(a)5., Fla. . . . adequately notifies insureds of its election to limit reimbursements via the Medicare fee schedules in § 627.736 . . . med] from the policy’s plain statement that reimbursements ‘shall’ be subject to the limitations in § 627.736 . . . insurer’s election to limit reimbursements according to the Medicare fee schedules set forth in section 627.736 . . . “Any amounts payable under this coverage shall be subject to any and all limitations authorized by 627.736 . . .
. . . See § 627.736(5)a.2.f., Fla. . . . State Farm did not adopt the limitations for reimbursement allowed by section 627.736(5)a.2.f., Florida . . .
. . . . § 627.736(5)(a). . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(a)(4). . . . State § 627.736(5)(a)(4) provides as follows: If an insurer limits payment as authorized by subparagraph . . .
. . . This Court noted that section 627.736(7), Florida Statutes (2009), states that if a person unreasonably . . . By using the term “unreasonably refuses to submit” in subsection 627.736(7)(b), it is logical to deduce . . . claimant’s failure to attend a medical examination was unreasonable as a matter of law under section 627.736 . . .
. . . appellate attorney’s fees, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400 and sections 627.428 and 627.736 . . .
. . . case requires us to define the scope of the enforcement provision available to insurers under section 627.736 . . . These requests for information were submitted pursuant to section 627.736(6)(b), Florida Statutes, which . . . The court found that section 627.736(5)(a), Florida Statutes, prohibits PIP health care providers from . . . Section 627.736(5)(a) provides, in relevant part: (a) ... . . . (6)(c), Florida Statutes allows discovery under the entirety of section 627.736, including the types . . .
. . . See § 627.736, Fla. Stat. (2013); Steven E. Goodwiller, M.D., P.A. v. . . .
. . . . § 627.736(l)(a)(l); see also Fla. . . . . § 627.736(5)(b)(l)(b) (“An insurer or insured is not required to pay a claim or charges ... for any . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(b)(l)(b). . . .
. . . . § 627.736(l)(a). . . .
. . . insurance policy provided adequate notice of its election to use the Medicare fee schedules referenced in § 627.736 . . . In sum, § 627.736(l)(a) requires automobile insurers to provide PIP coverage for eighty percent of all . . . See § 627.736(5)(a)l., Fla. Stat.; Virtual Imaging, 141 So.3d at 155-56. . . . for medical services like Stand-Up MRI’s to be limited via the use- of fee schedules identified in § 627.736 . . . Section 627.736(5)(a)2., in turn, refers to Medicare fee schedule-based limitations and provides that . . .
. . . . § 627.736(5)(a) (emphasis added). . . . Section 627.736(5)(a) further provides that: [i]n determining whether a charge for a particular service . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(a). . . .
. . . . § 627.736 Fla. Stat. (2008). . . . On January 1, 2008, a new version of the statute took effect, encompassing changes to § 627.736, concerning . . . insurers “may limit reimbursement” to 80% of a schedule of maximum charges set forth in the statute. § 627.736 . . . amounts payable under this coverage shall be subject to any and all limitations, authorized by section 627.736 . . . 2008, may an insurer limit reimbursements based on the Medicare fee schedules identified in Section 627.736 . . .
. . . . § 627.736(1) (emphasis added). . . . an] inability to work proximately caused by [an] injury sustained by the injured person.... ” Id. § 627.736 . . . the named insured, the benefits for loss of gross income and loss of earning capacity described in s. 627.736 . . .
. . . Relying on the fee payment structure set forth in section 627.736(5)(a)2.f., Florida Statutes (2008), . . . filed a cross motion for summary disposition, arguing that its liability was capped pursuant to section 627.736 . . . loss sustained ... as a result of bodily injury ... arising out of the ... use of a motor vehicle.” § 627.736 . . . Under section 627.736(5)(a)2.f., an insurer is permitted to pay an amount equal to 80% of 200% of the . . . issue authorized the payment of benefits pursuant to the fee payment structure set forth in section 627.736 . . .
. . . . §§ 627.736(l)(a) and (l)(a)(4). In pertinent part, 3. . . . Stat. § 627.736(l)(a)(3) (emphasis added). . . . Stat. § 627.736(l)(a)(4). . . .
. . . . § 627.736 (emphasis added). . . . Stat. § 627.736(l)(a)(3). . . . Stat. § 627.736(l)(a)(4). . . .
. . . State Farm claimed that its request for such documents was authorized by section 627.736(6)(b), Florida . . . Tampa Chiropractic that “[fjailure to comply with this request may place you in violation of [section 627.736 . . . declaratory judgment stating that State Farm’s document requests were outside the scope of section 627.736 . . . In pertinent part, section 627.736(6)(b) provides that a physician or medical institution that treats . . . While section 627.736(6)(b) allows the insurer to request a "written report of the history, condition . . .
. . . . § 627.736(l)(a))). . . . Stat. § 627.736, automobile insurers are legally obligated to provide PIP benefits up to $10,000.00 for . . . Stat. § 627.736(l)(a)(l) (alterations added). . . . Id. § 627.736(5)(b)(l)(b) (alterations added). State Farm has alleged “Kaizen and Dr. . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(b)(l)(b) for services unlawfully rendered. . . .
. . . Stat. § 627.736(7)'(a) (emphasis added). . . . Id. § 627.736(4)(b)4 (2006). . . . See id. § 627.736(4)(b)6. . . . Id. § 627.736(5)(b)l.c. . . . Stat. §627.736(1). . There were two trials; the first resulted in a mistrial. . . . .
. . . . § 627.736(7)(a) (emphasis added). . . . Id. § 627.736(4)(b)4 (2006). . . . See id. § 627.736(4)(b)6. . . . Id. § 627.736(5)(b)1.c. . . . Stat. § 627.736(1). . There were two trials; the first resulted in a mistrial. . . . .
. . . patients and State Farm of responsibility for the costs of these services under Florida Statute Section 627.736 . . . to trigger a payment exception under Florida’s Personal Injury Protection insurance statute, Section 627.736 . . . Stat. § 627.736(5)(d). . . . Similar to the allegations of violations of Florida Statute Section 627.736(5)(d), the alleged violations . . . rendered, State Farm was under no obligation to pay for these services under Florida Statute Section 627.736 . . .
. . . SECTION 627.736(4)(b) WHICH STATES THAT “HOWEVER, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT WRITTEN NOTICE HAS BEEN . . . Instead, it reduced the claims using the payment methodology of section 627.736(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes . . . See § 627.736(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . . A medical provider may charge only a reasonable amount for services provided under section 627.736(5) . . . See § 627.736(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008); Rodriguez, 808 So.2d at 87-88. . . .
. . . . § 627.736(5)(a). . . . See id. § 627.736(5)(a). . . . Stat. § 627.736(10)(a). . . . See id. § 627.736(4)(b)(6). . . . Stat. § 627.736(10)(a). . . . .
. . . of making motor vehicle tort claims or claims for personal injury protection benefits required by s. 627.736 . . .
. . . . § 627.736, Fla. Stat. (2013); § 324.022, Fla. Stat. (2013); see United Auto. Ins. Co. v. . . .
. . . PIP Act amended various provisions of the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, specifically section 627.736 . . . services and care from specified providers within fourteen days after the motor vehicle accident. § 627.736 . . . conditions” diagnosed by specified providers, and up to $2,500 for non-emergency medical conditions. § 627.736 . . . licensed massage therapists and licensed acupuncturists from being reimbursed for medical benefits. § 627.736 . . . insureds, they cannot make the determination that a patient has suffered an emergency medical condition. § 627.736 . . .
. . . State Farm then filed an action for discovery pursuant to section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2010). . . . “In the event of a dispute regarding an insurer’s right to discovery of facts under [section 627.736( . . . In addition, Millennium claims that State Farm’s action for discovery under section 627.736(6)(c) is . . . Florida courts have recognized section 627.736(6)(c) actions as actions in equity. . . . Goldstein, 798 So.2d 807 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (addressing section 627.736(6)(c) and the circuit court’ . . .
. . . precedent to the payment of PIP benefits was invalid and contrary to the PIP provisions of section 627.736 . . .
. . . (now codified in § 627.736(6)(g), Fla. Stat. (2012)). I. . . . (now codified in § 627.736(6)(g), Fla. Stat. (2012)). II. . . . STAT. § 627.736(4) (emphasis added); see Amador v. United, Auto. Ins. . . . STAT. § 627.736(4)(h). . . . (now codified in § 627.736(6)(g), Fla. Stat. (2012), effective January 1, 2013). . . .
. . . . §§ 400.9935(3), 627.736(l)(a)l. . . . [f|or any service or treatment that was not lawful at the time rendered ...,” id. § 627.736(5)(b)l.b. . . .
. . . (5)(a)l and 627.736(5)(a)2, Florida Statutes (2008), respectively establish mutually exclusive payment . . . The majority relies on Kingsway ⅛ dichotomy between section 627.736(l)(a) and section 627.736(5)(a)l, . . . on the one hand, and section 627.736(5)(a)2, on the other hand. . . . The majority adopts the reasoning of Kingsway that sections 627.736(l)(a) and 627.736(5)(a)l contain . . . (5)(a)l and section 627.736(5)(a)2. . . . The issue presented to the Court is whether the Medicare fee schedules set forth in section 627.736(5 . . . See § 627.736(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1971). . . . See § 627.736(5)(a)2.f., Fla. Stat. (emphasis supplied). . . . See § 627.736(5)(a)2., Fla. Stat. . . . That is the language of subsection 627.736(l)(a), which is amplified by subsection 627.736(5)(a)l. . . .
. . . (now codified in § 627.736(6)(g), Fla. Stat. (2012)). I. . . . (now codified in § 627.736(6)(g), Fla. Stat. (2012)). II. . . . STAT. § 627.736(4) (emphasis added); see Amador v. United Auto. Ins. . . . STAT. § 627.736(4)(h). . . . (now codified in § 627.736(6)(g), Fla. Stat. (2012), effective January 1, 2013). . . .
. . . UNDER MEDICARE PART B, IS THE SERVICE “REIMBURSABLE UNDER MEDICARE PART B” FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 627.736 . . . See § 627.736(5)(a)(2)(f). . . . Specifically, the order states that the “issue in this matter is interpretation [of section] 627.736( . . . The language of section 627.736(5)(a)(2)(f) is clear. . . . Section 627.736(5)(a)(3) provides that [f]or purposes of subparagraph 2., the applicable fee schedule . . .
. . . See, e.g., § 627.736, Fla. Stat. (2005) et. seq. . . .
. . . for the limits of liability and personal injury protection coverage required by ss. 324.021(7) and 627.736 . . .
. . . Section 627.736, Florida Statutes, controls the outcome of this case. . . . The claims at issue under section 627.736, Florida Statutes, are not Medicare claims part of a government . . . In section 627.736(5)(a)(4) the Legislature recognizes that Medicare uses a variety of guides to limit . . . The trial court and the appellate court each rejected this argument, concluding that “subsections 627.736 . . . The language of section 627.736(5)(a)4. further supports a finding that the Legislature did not intend . . .
. . . Pinnacle Med., Inc., 753 So.2d 55, 57 (Fla.2000) (holding the mandatory arbitration provision of section 627.736 . . .
. . . Our elusive target this time is the meaning and application of section 627.736(5)(b)l.c., Florida Statutes . . . Section 627.736(5)(b)l.c. reads as follows: (b)l. . . . Stat. § 627.736(4)(b). . . . First, the plain language of section 627.736(5)(b)l.c. supports the invalidation of the claims. . . . We conclude, therefore, that section 627.736(5)(b)1.c. should be interpreted in that fashion. . . .
. . . the registered owner, the insurance company insuring the vehicle notwithstanding the provisions of s. 627.736 . . .
. . . Under Section 627.736(1), a driver needs a policy that pays eighty percent of reasonable medical expense . . .