From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC

Florida Court of Appeals, Third District
Mar 16, 2022
No. 3D21-331 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2022)

Opinion

3D21-331

03-16-2022

United Automobile Insurance Company, Appellant, v. Millennium Radiology, LLC d/b/a Millennium Open MRI, a/a/o William Thonday, Appellee.

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.


Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Ayana Harris, Judge. Lower Tribunal Nos. 13-10056 SP & 20-279 AP

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

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 first-party 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 reverse the final summary judgment because the identity of the parties did not exist to warrant the application of collateral estoppel. Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC

Florida Court of Appeals, Third District
Mar 16, 2022
No. 3D21-331 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2022)
Case details for

United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC

Case Details

Full title:United Automobile Insurance Company, Appellant, v. Millennium Radiology…

Court:Florida Court of Appeals, Third District

Date published: Mar 16, 2022

Citations

No. 3D21-331 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2022)