UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
v.
MILLENNIUM RADIOLOGY, LLC, D/B/A MILLENNIUM OPEN MRI, A/A/O WILLIAM THONDAY,
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A medical provider's identity is not the same from case to case when it receives assignments from different insureds, and therefore the identity element of collateral estoppel is not satisfied.
[1] A medical provider's legal identity is derived from its assignor (the insured), and therefore when a provider receives assignments from different insureds in separate law…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUnited Automobile Insurance Company disputed the reasonableness of Millennium Radiology's charge for an MRI procedure. The trial court granted summary…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reasonableness Of Medical Charges cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed March 16, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-331 Lower Tribunal Nos. 13-10056 SP & 20-279 AP ________________
United Automobile Insurance Company, Appellant,
vs.
Millennium Radiology, LLC d/b/a Millennium Open MRI, a/a/o William Thonday, Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Ayana Harris, Judge.
Michael J. Neimand, for appellant.
David B. Pakula, P.A., and David B. Pakula (Pembroke Pines); Marks & Fleischer, P.A., and Gary Marks (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.
Before SCALES, HENDON and MILLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Appellant United Automobile Insurance Company, an insurer, challenges a final summary judgment in favor of Millennium Radiology, LLC, a medical provider and assignee of the insured, William Thonday, in a firstparty personal injury protection action.
Below, United Auto disputed the reasonableness of Millennium Radiology’s charge for an MRI procedure. The trial court granted summary judgment to Millennium Radiology on the basis of collateral estoppel, finding that in a prior PIP lawsuit between the parties, a jury had made the determination that the amount charged for the MRI procedure was reasonable. On appeal, United Auto argues that the parties in the respective lawsuits are not identical because Millennium Radiology received assignment from different insureds, and thus, the “identity” element of the collateral estoppel doctrine is not satisfied.
We recently decided this issue in United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Millennium Radiology, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D175, 2022 WL 107604 at *3 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 12, 2022), where we held that Millennium Radiology’s identity is not the same from case to case, as it draws its identity from the insured, its assignor. We recognize that the trial court did not have the benefit of this opinion at the time it entered judgment in the instant case; nevertheless, we
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)