CASE REVIEW: PAN AM DIAGNOSTIC V. STATE FARM: STATE FARM’S POLICY STRICKEN AS VAGUE!!!

On April 30, 2015 the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County held that State Farm’s policy failed to clearly elect the use of the multiple procedure payment reduction rule. The Honorable Judge Linda Singer Stein opined that State Farm’s policy and procedures were vague and ambiguous as to whether it could reduce payment to less than 200% of the Medicare Physicians Fee Schedule for 2007. This decision is important in light of the new PIP law that went into effect in 2012 and 2013. The new PIP law allows insurers to utilize Medicare Coding Methodologies. However, an insurer must give its customers/insureds notice of its election to incorporate alternative payment methods.

The 11th Judicial Circuit reaffirmed the holding in Kingsway Amigo Insurance Company v. Ocean Health, Inc. A/a/o Belizaire Gomez, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1062a (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), holding that the insurer must elect a fee schedule methodology with clear and unambiguous language. If State Farm chooses to utilize the MPPR payment methodology, it must “clearly and unambiguously elect to pay pursuant to the MPPR. “

FACTS: Cristina Lasaga was injured in a motor vehicle accident on August 29, 2013. She had a Personal Injury Protection policy with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company to which she assigned her benefits under the policy to Pan Am Diagnostic Services, Inc..She sought treatment with Pan Am Diagnostic Services, Inc. and received a cervical MRI and a lumbar MRI.

State Farm reimbursed the Provider $672.80 for the neck MRI and $1,206.66 for the low back MRI. Both MRIs were performed on the same day. State Farm reimbursed the Plaintiff Provider pursuant to the Medicare Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction rules (“MPPR”). The court had to decide whether State Farm’s policy form 9810A clearly and specifically elected the permissive fee schedule reimbursement methodology or clearly and specifically elected to pay according to a different, and lower, reimbursement method, the Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction, also known as MPPR.

Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff Cross-Noticed their Summary Judgment.

Arguments:

  1. Plaintiff argued that State Farm’s policy clearly stated that it will pay 80% of the allowable amount under the participating physicians’ fee schedule of Medicare Part B. The policy further states that it will not make a payment less than the allowable amount under the applicable schedule of Medicare Part B for 2007 for medical services and care subject to Medicare Part B. Thus, Plaintiff argued the MPPR cannot apply because it would result in a reimbursement less than what State Farm promises in their policy.
  2. Defendant argued that their policy allows Medicare coding despite failing to include language specifically allowing them to elect to utilize MPPR payment methodologies. They further argued that the same language allowed them to limit PIP reimbursements below the allowable amount under the 2007 Medicare Part B physicians fee schedule, based on the MPPR.

Court’s Decision

Honorable Judge Linda Singer Stein ruled in favor of the Plaintiff. She held that State Farm’s policy clearly elected to pay pursuant to the permissive fee schedule found in Florida Statutes Section 627.736(5)(a)(1)(f). Thus, State Farm had an obligation to pay its insured pursuant to that payment methodology. The Court held that Defendant’s policy does not permit it to, “limit its reimbursement to the Plaintiff to less than 80% of the allowable amount under the 2007 Medicare Part B fee schedule. State Farm failed to clearly elect the MPPR reduction.” State Farm failed to include specific language about the MPPR reduction within its policy.

HOW IT HELPS YOU

If your insured assigns benefits under a new State Farm policy, send us the EOBs to determine whether or not State Farm has utilized MPPR reductions. State Farm’s policy lacks a clear and unambiguous election and as such you are entitled to reimbursement pursuant to either the 2007 Medicare Part B fee schedule or the fee schedule for the year in which the services were rendered.[1] We will file our Motions and ensure that you receive full reimbursement for the necessary medical services you provide!

[1] The greater of the two fee schedules.

It’s easy to get started

Fill out the form or call us at 561-888-8888

Meet your legal team

We fight to win you more

It’s Easy to Get Started

Fill out the form or call us at 561-888-8888

Meet your legal team

We fight to win you more

Premises liability

PREMISE LIABILITY

$450,000

James was searching for equipment for painting at Home Depot. In the aisle next to him, there was a worker on a lift stocking the highest shelf. The worker pushed boxes so far across the shelf that they fell off the other edge and hit James in the head. The force almost knocked James unconscious. He sat down and the loud bang got the worker off the ladder to see what fell. When they saw James they offered him a bucket and made a report. James did not recall leaving the store or how he got home. He did not recall much except being at home depot and getting hit in the head. Home Depot told him that it was a small box of dust masks that hurt him. We discovered it was actually a large box of emergency kits that fell off the shelf.

Personal injury

PERSONAL INJURY

$850,000

In this case, our client slipped and fell on water that had accumulated near the hot tubs/showers on the Lido deck of a major cruise line ship. The client suffered torn ligaments to her shoulder that required 2 arthroscopic surgeries. The cruise line took the position that the condition on the floor was open and obvious.

Premises liability

PREMISES LIABILITY

$980,000

Georgia was visiting a friend in the hospital when she walked out of the elevator and into her friend’s room. As soon as she entered the room she slipped on a newly mopped floor without any wet floor sign present. The floor was so wet that Georgia’s entire outfit was soaked. Because of the muted tile floor, the water was invisible. Georgia needed a back operation which was unsuccessful and caused her to slip into a coma. She luckily survived.

Motor vehicle accident

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

$1.1 MILLION

AUTOMOBILE REAR END COLLISION

Rodrigo was driving his work truck home when he was rear-ended at a stoplight. Rodrigo needed a fusion of his thoracic spine. A terrible and complex operation. Unfortunately, while Rodrigo was undergoing the spinal operation, one of his children died and he was unable to be with his grieving wife. It was a tragic case that eventually settled.

Bicycle vs car accident

BICYCLE VS CAR ACCIDENT

$1.45 MILLION

David was a teacher at a local high school. He rode his bike to school in the morning and after school would ride another 10 miles for exercise. On a sunny afternoon on his way home an older driver turned right into him as he was riding down the street. He hurt his shoulder and neck and needed two operations. Defendant felt his injury was due to playing football 10 years earlier and would not provide him a fair or reasonable offer.

Car vs commercial truck accident

CAR VS COMMERCIAL TRUCK ACCIDENT

$3.4 MILLION

Joe was driving his 18 wheeler on the Florida Turnpike headed south after a long-haul run.  He was “bobtailing” which means he did not have a cargo trailer on the back of his truck rig.  A drunk driver lost control of his car causing Joe to avoid the accident but drive off the highway and into a canal.  He was injured in the accident but also witnessed a child die when he climbed out of the truck and came to the accident site.  There the injured child was trapped under the car and he was powerless to save the child before it passed.

Auto accident T-Bone

AUTO ACCIDENT T-BONE

$4.5 MILLION

Xao, a Vietnamese immigrant was driving home after work at night to see his pregnant wife. He stopped at a 4-way intersection and looked both ways. He did not see anyone in either direction. As Mr. X when through the intersection he was hit on the passenger side door by a mid-sized black SUV driving without their lights on. Mr. X was catastrophically injured.

Personal injury

PERSONAL INJURY

$8.2 MILLION

This was a hard-fought pedestrian accident case, in which our client was struck by an SUV driven by a teen driver, as they attempted to cross North Military Trail in West Palm Beach, FL. As a result of the accident, our client suffered numerous fractures, partial loss of vision and frontal lobe brain injury that affected his speech, and other personal injuries that required him to be hospitalized for 58 days.

At the time of the accident, our client was a cashier at Walmart and has been unable to return to work.

“This case is the epitome of what we consider part of our Core Culture and broad vision – which is to be Warriors for Justice,” stated Brian LaBovick. “Mr. Jacobus has serious permanent injuries and will continue to fight to regain his life into the foreseeable future. This verdict will allow him to get the professional help he needs to safely navigate the rest of his life.”

Medical malpractice

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

$15 MILLION

Brain damages child due to medical negligence.  Mother was misdiagnosed upon entry to the hospital while under contractions.  The child was born severely disabled.