Valen Edwin V. - Hamilton Miller & Birthisel

partner

EDWIN V. VALEN

phone

813-223-1900

download vCard

Edwin Valen is a Partner in the Firm’s Tampa office who has extensive experience representing insurers throughout Florida. He has been involved in thousands of matters in all phases of litigation involving PIP, personal injury, SIU, and insurance coverage matters and has presented oral arguments on appeal on several occasions at the Second District Court of Appeal.

Edwin previously worked in claims management for one of the largest insurance carriers in the nation. Prior to joining the firm, Edwin worked for both small and mid-sized law firms and one of the largest insurance defense firms in the State of Florida. He is regularly consulted on adjuster best practices for depositions, having defended hundreds of adjuster depositions in his career and has testified as an attorney fee expert in the Tampa, Fort Myers, Orlando, and Daytona Beach area venues on multiple occasions.

Edwin received his Juris Doctor/MBA from Stetson University College of Law in 2004 and his Bachelor of Science and his Bachelor of Arts from the University of Florida in 2001.

Originally from the Pensacola, Florida area, Edwin has called Tampa Bay home for over twenty years.

PRACTICE AREAS

Insurance Coverage

Insurance Fraud & SIU

Personal Injury and Wrongful Death

Personal Injury Protection

Education

M.B.A., Stetson University

J.D., Stetson University of Law

B.A., Political Science, University of Florida

B.S., Business Management, University of Florida

Admissions

Florida

Experience

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Fischer, 16 So.3d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) – Appellee son filed a declaratory judgment action against appellee insurer, seeking a determination that he was entitled to medical expense coverage under his parents’ policy. The insurer challenged orders of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County (Florida), which granted the son’s motion for summary judgment and entered a final judgment in his favor. The court of appeal reversed the summary judgment and the final declaratory judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings.
Florida Pain and Wellness Centers, Inc. a/a/o Juan Gonzalez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 670a (Fla. Hillsborough Cty. Ct. August 10, 2018) – Provider that billed for electrical stimulation therapy was not entitled to separate payment for electrical stimulation pads incident to the procedure performed.
Health Source of Brandon a/a/o Thomas Frey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 414a (Fla. Hillsborough Cty. Ct. July 2, 2018) – Where medical provider’s attorney filed amended petition for declaratory relief only minutes before hearing on motion to dismiss original petition, and facts indicate that primary purpose of filing amended petition was to cause unreasonable delay, insurer’s motion for sanctions is granted.
Dr. Kristin M. Kidgell, DC a/a/o Farrah Probst v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 970a (Fla. Pinellas Cty. Ct. November 29, 2017) – Insurer that obtained summary judgment in PIP suit due to defective demand letter that failed to take into account prior partial payments made by insurer is entitled to award of attorneys’ fees under section 57.105.
Progressive American Insurance Company v. Hess Spinal & Medical Centers, Inc. a/a/o Stefan Iliev, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 607a (Fla. 13th Cir. Ct. App. August 27, 2019) – Where PIP policy provides that insurer will determine to be unreasonable any charges that exceed maximum charges set forth in PIP statute and will limit reimbursement to 80% of schedule of maximum charges, trial court erred in determining that policy did not clearly and unambiguously elect statutory fee schedules and created hybrid methodology of calculating reimbursement.
Jeff Davis D.C., P.A. a/a/o Stane Lane v. State farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 724a (Fla. Hillsborough Cty. Ct. September 15, 2016) – Claim of defense not supported by material facts or applicable law – where medical provider lacked standing at outset of case due to expiration of registration of fictitious name to which insured assigned PIP benefits, insurer is entitled to award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
SOCC, P.L. d/b/a South Orange Wellness & Injury Center a/a/o Youssef Assal v. Progressive American Insurance Company, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 163b (Fla. Hillsborough Cty. Ct. October 13, 2015) – Insurers were authorized to apply Medicare Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction to medical providers’ bills where PIP statute authorizes use of Medicare coding policies, including MPPR, and insurers have placed insureds on notice that MPPR will be utilized in determining appropriate reimbursement – MPPR is not per se limitation on utilization prohibited by PIP statute.
Axcess Diagnostics, Etc. v. State Farm Mutual, Etc., 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1088c (Fla. Manatee Cty. Ct. September 19, 2014) – Notice seeking depositions by naming witnesses and/or describing their position or function impermissibly commingled notice methods allowed by rule 1.310(a).
Terlep Chiropractic, P.A. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 985a (Fla. 6th Cir. Ct. App. February 24, 2015) – Where purported assignment of benefits directs payment to medical provider but does not contain any language conveying right to bring cause of action against insurer, provider lacks standing.
Jennifer A. Spencer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp 713a (Fla. Polk Cty. Ct. March 4, 2013) – Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; time claimed by attorney is reduced to delete travel time, time spent on clerical tasks, vague and duplicative entries, excessive billing and hours spent due to mistrial declared at request of insured on issue on which insurer ultimately prevailed.
Richard W. Merritt, D.C., P.A. a/a/o Arthur Lee Evans v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 969a (Fla. 10th Cir. Ct. App. August 12, 2011) – Where assignment of PIP benefits at inception of case was to treating physician as individual, not to plaintiff that is corporate entity, plaintiff lacked standing to bring suit.
Senpri Medical Center, Inc. a/a/o Benjamin Almeida v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 96a (Fla. Hillsborough Cty. Ct. August 11, 2010) – Medical provider cannot bill component treatment charge separately on same insured for same date of service as provider bills comprehensive charge.
State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Nu-Best Whiplash Injury Center, Inc. a/a/o Catalina Thomas, Lisa Colon, Gale Bauer, Jan Avery, Robert Mcanelly, and Dorian Domingue, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1a (Fla. 6th Cir. Cty. App. April 30, 2015) – Trial court entering summary judgment in favor of medical provider seeking balance of reduced claims for video fluoroscopies erred in relying on holdings in Kingsway, Virtual Imaging, and DCI MRI to determine that insurer improperly applied permissive statutory fee schedule where those cases involve applicability of schedule of maximum charges and present cases are controlled by 2002 and 20034 versions of PIP statute regarding video fluoroscopy charges and workers’ compensation fee schedule.
Charles Warner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp 25a (Fla. Escambia Cty. Ct. September 11, 2009) – Deposition of insurer’s employees with knowledge of whether database used by insurer as index to establish amount to be paid for claims has been used in inconsistent and inappropriate manner is not relevant to issue of whether database is appropriate means of calculating amount to be paid for claims under insured’s policy – motion for protective order granted.
Doreen Leonard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1209a (Fla. Sarasota Cty. Ct. October 14, 2008) – Demand letter to which insured attached patient ledger and therapy notes, but which did not otherwise state exact amount claimed to be due, fails to satisfy statutory requirements – Further demand letter was not sent to person specified by insurer for purposes of receiving such notices.

Memberships

Hillsborough County Bar Association, Member
Florida Claims Defense Network, Member