UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, D/B/A UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST D/B/A JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, APPELLANTS
v.
KARINA ZEPEDA, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER PARENTS AND AS NATURAL GUARDIANS, LUIS AND DORA ZEPEDA, AND FLORIDA BIRTH-RELATED NEUROLOGICAL INJURY COMPENSATION ASSOCIATION, 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 University of Miami and Jackson Memorial Hospital appealed an administrative decision denying compensation for a birth-related neurological injury under Florida's Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (NICA). The appellate court affirmed the hearing officer's determination that the minor child did not sustain the requisite permanent and substantial mental and physical impairment for NICA coverage.
The hearing officer's determination that the child did not sustain a permanent and substantial mental and physical impairment was supported by substantial competent evidence and involved no abuse of discretion or violation of law. The court affirmed the administrative decision denying NICA compensation.
[1] A birth-related injury is not compensable under Florida's Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan if the child does not sustain a permanent and substantial me…
[2] An administrative agency's determination supported by substantial competent evidence will be affirmed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion or violation of law.
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“We must affirm where as here our review of the record reflects that there was substantial competent evidence to support the hearing officer's determination on this issue and discloses neither an abuse of discretion nor a violation of law by the agency.”
Establishes the standard of review for administrative decisions and the court's rationale for affirming the hearing officer's order.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKarina Zepeda, a minor, sustained a birth-related injury during delivery at Jackson Memorial Hospital. A hearing officer reviewed conflicting medical …
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 Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (Nica) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants appeal a final order of the Division of Administrative Hearings which determined that a birth-related injury sustained by appellee Karina Zepeda was not compensable under Florida’s Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan [NICA], see sections 766.301-316, Florida Statutes (1991).1 The hearing officer basically concluded, after reviewing conflicting medical opinions, that Karina did not sustain a permanent and substantial mental and physical impairment so as to subject her to the limitations proscribed in the act. We must affirm where as here our review of the record reflects that there was substantial competent evidence to support the hearing officer’s determination on this issue and discloses neither an abuse of discretion nor a violation of law by the agency.2 § 120.68(10), Fla.Stat. (1991); Carreras v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Ass’n, 665 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Gershanik v. Department of Professional Regulation, Bd. of Medical Examiners, 458 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 462 So. 2d 1106 (Fla.1985); Cohen v. School Bd. of Dade County, Fla., 450 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Affirmed.
. As a result of this finding, appellees were not barred from proceeding with their medical malpractice action against appellants in the Dade Circuit Court. § 766.306, Fla.Stat. (1991).
. We hasten to point out that because it has been determined in this administrative proceeding that the minor child is not "permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired,” this issue may not be relitigated in the pending medical malpractice action between these parties. "Where an administrative agency is acting in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it, as to which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate, the court will apply res judicata or collateral estoppel to enforce repose.” United States Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Odoms, 444 So. 2d 78, 80 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (citing Jet Air Freight v. Jet Air Freight Delivery, Inc., 264 So. 2d 35 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 267 So. 2d 833 (Fla.1972)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Fernandez, 905 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…priate certificates of use, they will continue to violate the code. § 33-39, Miami-Dade County Code (“[e]aeh day of violation or noncompliance shall constitute a separate offense”); see also Holiday Inns, 678 So. 2d at 529; Univ. of Miami v. Zepeda, 674 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (applying res judicata where an administrative agency acted in a judicial capacity and resolved disputed issues of fact). As O’Brien makes clear, the county is permitted to enjoin such unlawful conduct. The landowners finally com…
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Goldberg, 687 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…ldberg’s appeal was dismissed and the administrative adjudication has now become final. We agree with the trial court’s ruling that a further challenge to the citations is barred under the doctrine of res judicata. See University of Miami v. Zepeda, 674 So. 2d 765, 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Goldberg also challenges the trial court’s non-final order finding that the County is entitled to civil penalties, attorney’s fees, and administrative costs. The County relies on section 33-39.1 of the Dade County Code. As…
-
Rathkamp v. Dep't OF Cmty. Affairs & Monroe Cnty., 740 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…cal state concern pursuant to section 380.04, Florida Statutes (1997). After reviewing the record on appeal, we first find that there is competent substantial evidence to support the FDCA’s findings in this regard. See University of Miami v. Zepeda, 674 So. 2d 765, 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Armesto v. Weidner, 615 So. 2d 707, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Cohen v. School Bd. of Dade County, Florida, 450 So. 2d 1238, 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Finally, contrary to the appellants’ argument, we conclude that section 380…
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
- Barbara and Karl Cohen v. The Sch. Bd. OF Dade Cnty., 450 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- IDY Corp. v. Freedman, 458 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Ricardo O. Gershanik, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 458 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- JET AIR Freight v. JET AIR Freight Delivery, Inc., 264 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Odoms, 444 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Spencer v. State, 267 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1972)
- Flor Carreras v. Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n, 665 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Rehurek, 267 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1972)