Archive by Month: December 2012

Preliminary Injunction Denied for Certain Provisions of PIP Act

Posted in Newsletters - 2012 on December 13, 2012

On December 12, 2012, the United States District Court in Tampa, in Robin A. Myers, A.P., et al. v. Kevin McCarty, Commissioner of Fl. Office of Insurance Regulation, Case No: 8:12-cv-2660-T-26TBM, issued an order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction wherein Plaintiffs, different licensed health care providers providing chiropractic, massage therapy, and acupuncture services, sought declaratory and injunctive relief with regard to the implementation and enforcement of certain provisions of the PIP Act due to take effect on January 1, 2013. The challenged provisions include the amendment eliminating a massage therapist's and acupuncture physician's treatment services, the imposition of a fourteen-day deadline in which an injured person must seek treatment after the collision to be able to seek PIP benefits, and the limit of PIP benefits to $2,500.00 unless the person is diagnosed with an "emergency medical condition."

 

Read More

Quarterly Newsletter

Posted in Newsletters - 2012 on December 1, 2012

In Blanton v. Godwin, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D1812 (Fla. 2d DCA, Aug. 1, 2012) and Saunders v. Dickens, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D2274 (Fla. 4th DCA, Sept. 27, 2012), the Second and Fourth District Courts of Appeal addressed the issue of whether consortium claims are so intertwined with the claimant’s spouse’s claim such that, where only one of the two plaintiffs are entitled to recover his or her fees pursuant to a proposal for settlement, the moving party cannot and need not allocate the amount of time spent on each claim. Both courts found that absent evidence that allocation is impossible, the moving party may only recover those fees proven to be expended on the moving party’s claim to the exclusion of his or her spouse’s claim. The courts made it clear that the burden of proof is squarely on the moving party to allocate the time spent on both claims or present evidence that allocation was not feasible.

Newsletter_111512.pdf

 

Read More