ATLANTIC FOUNDATION, AND EXECUTIVE RISK CONSULTANTS, PETITIONERS,
v.
RANDY GURLACZ, AND DR. GREGORY LOVAAS, RESPONDENTS
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 Florida District Court of Appeal held that a Judge of Compensation Claims lacks jurisdiction to hear a medical provider's billing dispute with a workers' compensation carrier, and that such disputes must be resolved by the Division of Workers' Compensation pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Reimbursement Manual.
The Division of Workers' Compensation, not the Judge of Compensation Claims, is the proper forum for disposition of Dr. Lovaas' billing dispute claim. The statutory authority for the Division's jurisdiction derives from section 440.13(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), and the pertinent rule is F.A.C. 38F-7.020, which incorporates the Workers' Compensation Reimbursement Manual.
[1] Prohibition is a proper remedy to challenge a lower tribunal's rejection of a motion to dismiss based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
[2] The version of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, in effect at the time a claim is filed controls the determination of jurisdiction.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“In fact, it is a proper vehicle to test a lower tribunal's rejection of a challenge to its subject matter jurisdiction.”
Establishes that prohibition is the appropriate remedy to challenge a court's assertion of jurisdiction over a matter.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRandy Gurlacz, an injured worker, received treatment from Dr. Gregory Lovaas that was authorized by the workers' compensation carrier Executive Risk C…
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 Prohibition As Remedy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Randy Gurlacz is an injured worker receiving workers’ compensation benefits under the applicable Florida statutory provisions. Atlantic Foundation and Executive Risk Consultants are the employer and carrier (e/c), respectively. Treatment of Gurlacz by Gregory Lovaas, M.D., was authorized by the e/c and Dr. Lovaas submitted bills to the e/c for his treatment of the claimant. The e/c, however, paid amounts less than those billed, contending that these reductions were in accordance with the Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual. Dr. Lovaas was dissatisfied with the payments and sought relief from the Judge of Compensation Claims. The e/c moved to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the Division of Workers’ Compensation, rather than the JCC, was the proper forum for resolution of the dispute. The JCC denied the motion, finding that he had jurisdiction pursuant to sections 440.10(1), 440.13(2)(a) and (b), and 440.25(1), Florida Statutes. This petition for writ of prohibition followed.
Petitioners argue that by statute and rule the Division of Workers’ Compensation clearly has jurisdiction of this matter, relying on section 440.13(2)(i)l., Florida Statutes (Supp.1990) and F.A.C.Rules 38F-7.506 and .507. Petitioners also place reliance on Lamounette v. Akins, 547 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Long Grove Builders v. Haun, 508 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); and Mt. Sinai Medical Center v. Samuels, 453 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Respondent Lovaas opposes the petition, arguing first that prohibition is an inappropriate remedy to obtain review of an order denying a motion to dismiss. Respondent also refers this court to Freshwater v. Troy Manufacturing Co., 11 F.A.L.R. 569 (Fla.Dept. of Labor and Employment Security 1988), an agency final order which adopted a DOAH hearing officer’s recommendation that a Judge of Compensation Claims, rather than the Division, was the appropriate forum for disposition of a similar claim.
First, we disagree with respondent that prohibition is unavailable. In fact, it is a proper vehicle to test a lower tribunal’s rejection of a challenge to its subject matter jurisdiction. English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1977); Lamounette.
We also find that our decision must be controlled by the version of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, which was in effect at the time Dr. Lovaas filed his claim, which is that codified in the 1989 statutes. The revisions to chapter 440 which appear in the 1990 Supplement to Florida Statutes were enacted by chapter 90-201, Laws of Florida. This law became effective on July 1, 1990, several months after the claim was filed.
On the merits, we find that the question of the Division’s jurisdiction is well-settled. Both the Mt. Sinai and Long Grove Builders decisions addressed the issue squarely and found that the Division of Workers’ Compensation, rather than a Judge of Compensation Claims, is the proper forum for disposition of Dr. Lovaas’ claim. The statutory authority for the agency’s jurisdiction is section 440.13(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1989) and the pertinent rule appears at F.A.C. 38F-7.020 (incorporating by reference the Workers’ Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Physician and Non-Physician Services).
This court and the lower tribunals are bound to follow Mt. Sinai and Long Grove Builders in the absence of contrary judicial authority. Accordingly, the agency’s order in Freshwater is expressly disapproved.
The petition for writ of prohibition is granted with directions to the Judge of Compensation Claims to dismiss Dr. Lo-vaas’ claim for lack of jurisdiction.
PETITION GRANTED.
SHIVERS, C.J., and SMITH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wolk v. Jaylen Homes, Inc., 593 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…se, employer/carrier alleged overutilization, but failed to comply with the utilization review procedures prescribed by section 440.13(4)(d)1, Florida Statutes. In this regard, employer/carrier’s reliance on Carswell, Atlantic Foundation v. Gurlacz, 582 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1st DCA 1991), and Lamounette v. Akins, 547 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), is misplaced. Those cases involved resolution of disputes concerning the amount of medical bills submitted by medical providers, and allegations of gouging. The statut…
-
Terners OF Miami Corp. & Atlas Gen. v. Freshwater, 599 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…urisdiction to hear Dr. Freshwater’s claim, and should have transferred it to the Division. The failure of the judge to do so constituted reversible error. We recognize that there is language in our prior decision in Atlantic Foundation v. Gurlacz, 582 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), which may be read as concluding that Section 440.13(2)(i)l., Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), is substantive, rather than merely procedural, in its effect. To the extent that Gurlacz may be read as standing for such a conclusion, w…
-
The Avalon Ctr. & Unisource Administrators v. Hardaway, 967 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…roderick Constr., 583 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding that the JCC lacked jurisdiction over the determination of unjustified treatment, hospitalization or office visits and excessive charges for medical care), and Atlantic Found. v. Gurlacz, 582 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding that the JCC lacked jurisdiction over a dispute between the E/C and the claimant’s authorized physician over the [*274] carrier’s decision to pay the physician less than the amount billed). III. STANDING As to the stan…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carey English v. McCRARY, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977)
- Long Grove Builders, Inc. v. Haun, 508 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- MT. Sinai Med. Ctr. & All Risk Corp. of Fla. v. Samuels, 453 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- G.L. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 547 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Lamounette v. Honorable Elwyn M. Akins, 547 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)