BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
GREATER MIAMI HEBREW ACADEMY AND OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, 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 held that the deputy commissioner lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Blue Cross' claim for reimbursement under Section 440.42(3) because Blue Cross was not an authorized carrier under Section 440.02(7)(a).
Blue Cross sought reimbursement pursuant to Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes. The deputy commissioner dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.…
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 Jurisdiction Of Deputy Commissioner cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida (Blue Cross) appeals an order of the deputy commissioner dismissing its claim for reimbursement pursuant to Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes (1979), for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
Section 440.42(3) provides that “[w]hen there is any controversy as to which of two or more carriers is liable for the discharge of the obligations and duties of one or more employers with respect to a claim for ... benefits under this chapter, the deputy commissioner shall have jurisdiction to adjudicate such controversy....” (emphasis supplied). Section 440.02(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1979) defines “carrier,” in pertinent part, as “any person ... authorized under s. 440.38 to insure under this chapter. ...” It is undisputed that Blue Cross is not authorized under that section. Therefore, the deputy was correct in his determination that he had no jurisdiction to consider Blue Cross’ claim under section 440.42(3).
Affirmed.
ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., and McCORD, GUYTE P., Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bammac, Inc. v. Grady, 500 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…ant, or failing either or both, an order by the deputy commissioner. Viking Sprinkler; Conshor, Inc. v. Barnhart, 422 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); C & H Construction v. Leyman, 453 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Norris v. Ed Taylor Corporation, 484 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). This court has made it abundantly clear that the E/C’s do not have unfettered discretion in the choice of the type of rehabilitation, nor in the selection of providers. We do not propose to accord to the claimant’s attorneys the…
-
A.D. Builders, Inc. v. Johnston, 528 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…tially impaired his capacity to earn pre-injury wages is not supported by competent substantial evidence. The instant case can be contrasted with the cases of Towne v. Bates File Co., 497 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) and Norris v. Ed Taylor Corp., 484 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In both cases, this court found that the claimants were entitled to rehabilitation benefits. In Towne, the evidence indicated that the claimant requested a specific type of vocational rehabilitation. Additionally, this court not…