In American Mobile Health Services, Inc. a/a/o Tania Jimenez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 3D21-222 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 16, 2022), Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment entered in favor of State Farm following a jury verdict in a Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) coverage case.  The plaintiff, a medical provider, objected to the testimony of State Farm’s expert, arguing that the charges for medical treatment rendered by the plaintiff were unreasonable since they exceeded 200 percent of the amounts allowed for the same services under the Medicare Part B Fee Schedule.  In its opinion, the Third District adopted the holding in an Eleventh Judicial Circuit case from 2019, which stated that when an insurer elects to use the fee schedule limitation—like State Farm did—the amounts in that schedule function as a “hard cap on the charges a provider may recover” under the PIP Statute. If, however, the insurer does not elect a fee schedule limitation, then any such federal or state fee schedules will merely become a factor to consider in determining the reasonableness of the provider’s charges.  The Third District further explained that the PIP Statute does not require State Farm base its argument as to the unreasonableness of the plaintiff’s charges on any factor besides the Medicare Part B Fee Schedule.  The Statute’s use of the word “may” in subsection (5)(a) reflects that State Farm need not consider every factor listed in the Statute when determining reasonableness. Read full opinion here.