UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. MILLENNIUM RADIOLOGY, LLC, D/B/A MILLENNIUM OPEN MRI, etc.
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. MILLENNIUM RADIOLOGY, LLC, D/B/A MILLENNIUM OPEN MRI, etc.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 22, 2022.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-1864 Lower Tribunal No. 13-126 SP ________________
United Automobile Insurance Company, Appellant, vs. Millennium Radiology, LLC, d/b/a Millennium Open MRI, etc., Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Natalie Moore, Judge.
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 EMAS, LOGUE and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
We reverse and remand, consistent with our recent decisions in United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC, No. 3D21-2094 (Fla. 3d DCA June 15, 2022); United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D807, 2022 WL 1020116 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 6, 2022); United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D806, 2022 WL 1020096 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 6, 2022); United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D780
2 Mar. 16, 2022); United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D660, 2022 WL 790411 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 16, 2022); United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D660 Weekly D501 Weekly D501
3 WL 468118 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 16, 2022); United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D175, 2022 WL 107604 at *3 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 12, 2022) (“The real party in interest is Millennium as an assignee, not Millennium in its individual capacity as the provider of the medical services for each insured. Millennium's ‘identity’ is not the same in each of these cases against United Auto; Millennium draws its identity from its assignor from case to case. The identity element of collateral estoppel, therefore, is not satisfied.”) (internal citations omitted).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.