The Interplay Between Seeking Treatment and Who Can Render an EMC a View of EMC Case Law

The Florida No-Fault Personal Injury Protection (PIP) statute is confusing, vague, and frustrating to digest. As a practitioner or a layman, we all struggle to truly determine what the Legislature intended with this area of the law. That being said, it is important to understand when an injured person is to seek medical treatment, whom to treat with, and who can or cannot render an emergency medical condition (EMC) opinion.

When does a patient need to seek treatment?

According to Florida Statutes Section 627.736(1)(a) a patient must seek “initial service and care” within 14 days of the motor vehicle accident. For a patient to recover PIP benefits they must seek treatment for their injuries within this 14 day period. However, a giant red stop sign was placed into the law by the Legislature. A person seeking this initial care and treatment in connection with a car accident must see these licensed physicians to ensure medical benefits are reimbursed:

  • An orthopedic physician
  • An osteopathic physician
  • A dentist
  • A chiropractic physician
  • Treatment in a hospital or a facility that owns or is wholly owned by a hospital.
  • Qualified EMT

What is an EMC?

The next troubling part of this law deals with the magical EMC. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 627.732: “Emergency medical condition” means a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity, which may include severe pain, such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in any of the following:

  • Serious jeopardy to patient health.
  • Serious impairment to bodily functions.
  • Serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.

When does one have to get an EMC diagnosis?

There is no specific time frame to receive an EMC diagnosis. A person DOES NOT have to seek an EMC diagnosis within the first 14 days of the car accident. The EMC diagnosis cannot be determined by a chiropractic physician. The sole doctors with EMC diagnosis power are:

  • Orthopedic physicians (MD)
  • Osteopathic Physicians (DO)
  • Dentist
  • Physician Assistant
  • Advanced Registered Nurse practitioner

What is the EMC cap?

Insurance companies are currently arguing that they are allowed to cap PIP coverage at $2,500.00 in the absence of an EMC diagnosis. These insurers are arguing that the new law provides $10,000 in PIP coverage only if a qualified MD, DO, dentist, physician’s assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner declares that the patient has an emergency medical condition. If the qualified doctors or nurses fail to include an EMC diagnosis within their medical records, the insurers are arguing that $2,500.00 is the maximum coverage afforded to injured patients.

To recap: Insurer Argument: $2,500.00 in Coverage

Silence=$2,500.00, No EMC is determined=$2,500.00

The providers or “insureds” are arguing that $10,000.00 in PIP coverage remains if the medical records are silent as to an EMC diagnosis. They argue that the $2,500.00 coverage limitation solely occurs when one of the above-mentioned doctors determines that the injured person did not have an EMC.

To recap: Insureds/Providers Argument: $10,000.00

Silence=Full coverage, Affirmative EMC diagnosis= Full Coverage.

How to satisfy the EMC requirement

There is no specific form or document required for an EMC determination. The statute is silent as to the key language that needs to be present. What the statute does say is that:

“Reimbursement for services and care provided… up to $10,000 if an MD or DO, dentist, physician assistant, or advanced registered nurse practitioner has determined that the injured person had an emergency medical condition.”

Next, the following paragraph states:

“Reimbursement for services and care… is limited to $2,500.00 if any provider determines that the injured person did not have an emergency medical condition.

We suggest as a matter of course that our providers state that they rendered treatment to the patient and that in their medical opinion, an EMC exists. We likewise have them state the definition of an EMC for clarification. These methods are not necessary, but they are merely suggestions to ensure that the EMC diagnosis is accepted by the judge. There is uncertainty as to what qualifies as an EMC determination.

Case law – EMC pointers:

  1. Case law suggests that merely mentioning that a patient has an EMC condition will suffice.
  2. An independent doctor CANNOT review the medical records for the insurance company and state that the patient did not have an emergency medical condition.
    1. Reasoning: The statute clearly states that “initial services and care lawfully provided by a physician, etc.” Thus it contemplates initial services and care or follow-up services and care and it does not merely constitute a paper review of a patient’s file. A treating provider must render said EMC determination.
  3. Certain jurisdictions suggest that the defendant has a further requirement in the EMC determination:
    1. The defendant’s insurance company may have to serve the medical provider with a request for information or a 6(b) request. Said request must ask the provider for any documents supporting an EMC.
    2. If the provider fails to respond until after suit, this jurisdiction also suggests that the Case was filed prematurely.
  4. Defendant has been successful in arguing that a case filed without an EMC determination is premature, in that the demand letter should not have been served on the defendant until the provider served the defendant with an EMC affidavit or paperwork from the doctor.
    1. This certainly can be used against the insurer. Plaintiff’s counsel may argue that a request for information was not served. This may in fact counter a $2,500.00 cut-off.
  5. Plaintiff attorneys are filing declaratory actions in the realm of EMC’s. These actions ask the court to settle the EMC issue-namely, if the record is silent as to an EMC determination, should coverage be extended at $10,000.00 or at $2,500.00?

It is essential to contact an experienced PIP attorney to discuss EMC cut-offs and when an injured patient must treat with a provider to ensure PIP benefits are reimbursed. At the LaBovick Law Group, we will explain the process and make sure a proper EMC determination is made.

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.