parent corporation’s approval). There is also a genuine issue of material fact concerning the interrelatedness of operations. The paychecks sent to Harriel were drawn on AIM’s account, and her insurance policy was processed through AIM. Harriel also was informed that all receipts should be sent to AIM via Lane. Not only does this suggest a nexus between DialTone and AIM when it comes to financial matters, but it also demonstrates that, in day-to-day matters, Lane paid little regard to the corporate structures. The court is unpersuaded that it should do otherwise, especially when the corporate offices share the same address. At the very least, a genuine issue of fact exists as to this factor. See, e.g., McKenzie v. Davenport-Harris Funeral Home, 834 F.2d 930, 933-34 (11th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the court finds that there are facts
holding that summary judgment is improper when paychecks and bills are paid by parent and where insurance policy goes through parent holding that statute provides medical bills are admissible as evidence of necessary fair and reasonable charges holding that state did not submit sufficient evidence to establish amount of restitution to victim for medical bills incurred when it did not introduce any medical bills holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment by default  when the movants summary judgment proof is legally insufficient holding that plaintiff could recover medical fees not actually paid by the insurance company pursuant to an insurance contract