DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES I. MCKEE, JAMES CONE AND RAY CRALLE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed that proposed workers' compensation medical fee rules for physical therapists were invalid due to the absence of a required economic impact statement under Florida Statutes § 120.54(2)(a).
Proposed workers' compensation rules relating to physical therapists' fees are invalid when an economic impact statement required by § 120.54(2)(a) is absent and the agency has not demonstrated the absence is harmless error.
[1] An economic impact statement required by Florida Statutes § 120.54(2)(a) is mandatory for proposed agency rules, and its absence renders the rules invalid unless the agen…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The absence of such an economic impact statement may be harmless error if it is established that the proposed action will have no economic impact, or that the agency fully considered the asserted economic factors and impact”
Court explaining when absence of economic impact statement might not invalidate rules
The Department of Labor & Employment Security proposed agency rules governing medical fees under Florida's Workers' Compensation Act, including fee sc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Economic Impact Statement cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an administrative order declaring invalid portions of proposed agency rules relating to medical fees governed by Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Act.1 We conclude that a § 120.-54(4)(a), Florida Statutes, administrative rule challenge, rather than a circuit court action as appellant suggests, was the proper method for challenging the proposed rules, and we further conclude that the hearing officer correctly determined that the proposed rules, as they relate to physical therapists’ fees, are invalid due to the absence of a § 120.54(2)(a), Florida Statutes, economic impact statement. The absence of such an economic impact statement may be harmless error if it is established that the proposed action will have no economic impact, or that the agency fully considered the asserted economic factors and impact, see Florida-Texas Freight, Inc. v. Hawkins, 379 So. 2d 944 (Fla.1980); Polk v. School Board of Polk County, 373 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979); however, these circumstances were not shown to exist in the present case. The absence of an economic impact statement is therefore grounds for invalidity of those portions of the proposed rules relating to physical therapists’ fees. See § 120.-54(2)(c). It is thus unnecessary for this court to consider, and we expressly decline to address, the appropriateness of the proposed state-wide maximum fee schedule for workers’ compensation medical payments.
The order appealed is affirmed.
ERVIN and SHIVERS, JJ., concur. . See § 440.13(3)(a), Florida Statutes.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Ins. Servs. Off., 434 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…partment predicts many companies will begin with simple rough averaging and leveling, collecting the same gross income from essentially the same insureds, the added costs will be inconsequential. See Division of Workers’ Compensation, etc. v. McKee, 413 So. 2d 805, 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). [*930] But more fundamentally, section 120.54(2)(a) cannot reasonably be read as requiring the Department to speculate on the amount of decreased or increased cost each company will incur, from this day forward, as a result…
-
Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Wright, 439 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…Statutes (Supp. 1980).2 We affirm the hearing officer’s [*939] conclusion regarding the economic impact statement, thereby obviating consideration of his ruling on the statutory authority for the rule. See Division of Workers’ Compensation v. McKee, 413 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); General Development Utilities Inc. v. Florida Public Service Commission, 385 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). For this Court gratuitously to consider and rule upon the merits of the department’s authority in promulgating the ru…1 / 3
-
Cataract Surgery Ctr. v. Health Care Cost Containment Bd., 581 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…otherwise valid rule as long as evidence proves that an agency fully considered the economic impact of its action or if it is established that the agency’s proposed action will have no economic impact. See Division of Workers’ Compensation v. McKee, 413 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Polk School Bd. of Polk County, 373 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979). The harmless error doctrine will be applied unless the challenging party can show that deficiencies in the economic impact statement impair the fairness of the…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Polk v. The Sch. Bd. OF Polk Cnty., 373 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Florida-Texas Freight, Inc. v. Hawkins, 379 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1979)