STATE FARM MUTUAL
v.
GABLES INSURANCE RECOVERY
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.
State Farm appeals a summary judgment granted in favor of Gables Insurance Recovery regarding the reasonableness, relatedness, and medical necessity of medical bills. The appellate court reversed, finding that conflicting expert affidavits from State Farm created genuine disputes of material fact precluding summary judgment.
The trial court abused its discretion by accepting Gables' affidavits while rejecting State Farm's conflicting affidavits. State Farm's affidavits were sufficient to raise disputed issues of material fact precluding summary judgment, and therefore summary judgment should not have been granted.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by accepting one party's affidavits while rejecting a conflicting party's affidavits on the reasonableness, relatedness, and medical n…
[2] Conflicting affidavits regarding the reasonableness, relatedness, and medical necessity of medical bills are sufficient to raise disputed issues of material fact, preclud…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“it was an abuse of discretion to accept Plaintiff/Appellee's affidavits while rejecting State Farm's conflicting affidavits on whether the medical bills at issue were reasonable in price, related and medically necessary”
Establishes the core legal error—the trial court's selective acceptance of expert affidavits constituted abuse of discretion
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceState Farm sought to challenge medical bills submitted by Gables Insurance Recovery. State Farm presented conflicting affidavits from Michael W. Mathe…
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.
PER CURIAM.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) appeals a final judgment entered by the trial court following its order granting summary judgment on behalf of Gables Insurance Recovery, Inc. (“Provider”). Here, the trial court rejected the conflicting affidavits offered by State Farm of Michael W. Mathesie, D.C., a chiropractor and Edward A. Dauer, M.D., a radiologist regarding reasonableness, relatedness and medical necessity and summary judgment was granted on the Provider’s Motion for Summary Judgment. As this panel and the majority of prior panels from this Court have found, it was an abuse of discretion to accept Plaintiff/Appellee’s affidavits while rejecting State Farm’s conflicting affidavits on whether the medical bills at issue were reasonable in price, related and medically necessary. Taking State Farm’s affidavits into account, it was error to grant summary judgment on behalf of the Provider as the affidavits were sufficient to raise disputed issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. See United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Miami-Dade MRI a/a/o Bermudez, 2018-164 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. June 3, 2020); State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. Gables Insurance Recovery a/a/o Yuderis Rego, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 860a (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Nov. 20, 2019); United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Open MRI of Miami Dade, Ltd. a/a/o Rosa Castillo, Case No. 2017-326-AP-01 (Fla. 11th Cir Ct. Nov. 6, 2019); United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Miami Dade [*3] [*3] County MRI, Corp. a/a/o Marta Figueredo, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 506b (Fla. 11th Cir. App. July 30, 2019); United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Miami Dade County MRI, Corp. a/a/o Javier Rodriguez, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 225c (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. July 25, 2019); United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Miami Dade County MRI, Corp. a/a/o Rene Dechard, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 226a (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct., August 12, 2019); United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC a/a/o Javier Rodriguez, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 911b (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. July 19, 2019). Accordingly, the summary judgment and final judgment entered below are hereby REVERSED, and this cause is REMANDED to the trial court. Appellee’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is DENIED. Appellant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is conditionally GRANTED (conditioned upon Appellant ultimately prevailing and the enforceability of the proposal for settlement) and REMANDED to the trial court to fix the amount.