Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): support a breach of contract claim. See Colomar, 461 F.Supp.2d 1265 (allegations that patients with insurance and government benefits received significant discounts in price they paid for hospital’s services supported plaintiffs claim for breach of contract for unreasonable pricing); Payne v. Humana Hospital, 661 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (reversing dismissal of putative class action suit premised on unreasonable rates charged by a hospital even though contract required the payment of “prevailing rates” and “regular charges,” but did not “express prices within the four corners of the document.” The court described the charge master as a “complicated and unobtainable master charge list containing hundreds of items”); Mercy Hospital v. Carr, 297 So.2d 598 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the PIP statute imposes a duty 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an exception to the charges having to do with contributory negligence  charges two three and four was insufficient to preserve issue for appeal (B) holding that statute provides medical bill is admissible to prove amount fairness and reasonableness of charges (C) holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge (D) holding that the speedy trial clock for state charges did not begin to run when the defendant was taken into custody by federal authorities on federal charges but rather when he was indicted for the state charges (E) holding that although plaintiff was liable for medical services rendered he was not bound by the amount of the charges listed in the admission contract as he was entitled to question the reasonableness of the charges
Output (English): holding that the speedy trial clock for state charges did not begin to run when the defendant was taken into custody by federal authorities on federal charges but rather when he was indicted for the state charges