Case Name: NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. SOUTHEAST DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-02-02
Citations: 766 So. 2d 229
Docket Number: No. 4D99-0609
Parties: NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. SOUTHEAST DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Appellee.
Judges: KLEIN, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 766
Pages: 229–232

Head Matter:
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. SOUTHEAST DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Appellee.
No. 4D99-0609.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Feb. 2, 2000.
John H. Richards and Warren Kwavnick of Cooney, Mattson, Lance, Blackburn, Richards & O’Connor, P.A., Fort Lauder-dale, for appellant.
Harley N. Kane of Greenspan & Kane, Boca Raton,'for appellee.

Opinion:
HAZOURI, J.
The county court has certified a question of great public importance to this court pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.160(b) which we rephrase as follows:
IS AN INSURER REQUIRED BY SECTION 627.736(7)(a) FLORIDA STATUTES TO OBTAIN A MEDICAL REPORT BASED UPON A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF AN INSURED BEFORE IT MAY WITHDRAW PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION BENEFITS? .
We have accepted jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.080(b)(4)(a) and 9.160(d). We answer the question in the negative.
Melvin Adler (Adler) was injured in a car accident and underwent a nerve conduction test at Southeast Diagnostics, Inc. (Southeast). Adler's treating physician requested the nerve conduction test and was paid by Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Nationwide) for treatment rendered to that point. Adler was insured for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under an insurance policy issued by Nationwide. Nationwide obtained a report from a physician licensed under the same statutory chapter as the treating physician stating that the test performed by Southeast was medically unnecessary. In preparing this report, the physician reviewed Adler's medical records but did not conduct a physical examination of Adler. Based on the physician's report, Nationwide denied payment for the diagnostic test.
Adler assigned his right to PIP benefits under the Nationwide policy to Southeast. Southeast then initiated a two-count complaint against Nationwide, seeking monetary damages and a declaration that Nationwide was required to provide PIP benefits for the Southeast treatment. Count I, the damages claim, was referred to arbitration pursuant to section 627.736(5), Florida Statutes (1995), and the arbitration was stayed pending a ruling on Count II, the declaratory judgment claim.
Southeast filed a motion for summary judgment on Count II asserting that section 627.736(7)(a) requires that the PIP insurer must obtain a report based upon a physical examination of the insured before it may withdraw benefits. Nationwide asserted that there was no requirement under 627.736(7)(a) that the medical report had to be based upon a physical examination of the insured. The trial court granted Southeast's motion for summary judgment and certified the issue to this court as a matter of great public importance.
In the legislative session of 1987, section 627.736(7)(a) was amended to add the following language:
An insurer may not withdraw payment of a treating physician without the consent of the injured person covered by the personal injury protection, unless the insurer first obtains a report by a physician licensed under the same chapter as the treating physician whose treatment authorization is sought to be withdrawn, stating that the treatment was not reasonable, related, or necessary.
Prior to July 4, 1987, the effective date of the amendment to section 627.736(7)(a), there was neither a statutory nor contractual limitation regarding the withdrawal of PIP payments under a contract of insurance. We can find no language in the amendment that requires the medical report to be based upon a physical examination of the insured. Without express language from the legislature, there is no reason to conclude that a physical examination is required. We can envision many instances in which a competent physician upon reviewing medical records could conclude without the benefit of a physical examination that a treatment or test was not "reasonable, related, or necessary." If we follow Southeast's reasoning to its logical conclusion, every time a treating physician to whom a PIP carrier has paid benefits either conducted a diagnostic test or referred an insured for diagnostic testing, no matter how unconventional or medically unsound, a physical examination would be required before the payment could be refused.
The legislature is assumed to have expressed its intent through the words found in the statute. If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the legislative intent must be derived from the words used without involving construction or speculating as to what the legislature intended. See Zuckerman v. Alter, 615 So.2d 661, 663 (Fla.1993). If the statute is clear and unambiguous, the court is not free to add words to steer it to a meaning which its plain wording does not supply. See James Talcott, Inc. v. Bank of Miami Beach, 143 So.2d 657, 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). The court is also not free to edit statutes or to add requirements that the legislature did not include. See Meyer v. Caruso, 731 So.2d 118, 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). We reverse the trial court's granting of the summary judgment on behalf of Southeast and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
KLEIN, J., concurs.
FARMER, J., concurs specially with opinion.
. Section 627.736(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), provides:
Whenever the mental or physical condition of an injured person covered by personal injury protection is material to any claim that has been or may be made for past or future personal injury protection insurance benefits, such person shall, upon the request of an insurer, submit to mental or physical examination by a physician or physicians. The costs of any examinations requested by an insurer shall be borne entirely by the insurer. Such examination shall be conducted within the municipality of residence of the insured or in the municipality where the insured is receiving treatment. If the examination is to be conducted within the municipality of residence of the insured and if there is no qualified physician to conduct the examination within such municipality, then such examination shall be conducted in an area of the closest proximity to the insured's residence. Personal protection insurers are authorized to include reasonable provisions in personal injury protection insurance policies for mental and physical examination of those claiming personal injury protection insurance benefits. An insurer may not withdraw payment of a treating physician without the consent of the injured person covered by the personal injury protection, unless the insurer first obtains a report by a physician licensed under the same chapter as the treating physician whose treatment authorization is sought to be withdrawn, stating that the treatment was not reasonable, related, or necessary.