NAHID FARHANGI, APPELLANT,
v.
DUNKIN DONUTS AND ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 1999-02-17
No. 98-923
BOOTH, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.
728 So. 2d 772 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1999) Positive Treatment
Cited by 17 cases

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.

Synopsis

A workers' compensation claimant challenged the Judge of Compensation Claims' denial of her motion to strike the managed care arrangement, arguing she should not be bound by it because she received no notice when hired. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the JCC lacks statutory authority to strike managed care arrangements and that notice requirements are enforceable by the Agency for Health Care Administration, not the JCC.


Holding

The JCC lacks statutory authority to strike a managed care arrangement or award medical treatment outside an authorized managed care arrangement. Notice requirements under section 440.134(14) are enforceable by the Agency for Health Care Administration, not by the JCC.


Headnotes

[1] An employer must furnish an employee solely through managed care arrangements all medically necessary remedial treatment, care, and attendance for the period required by…

[2] An insurer may not offer or utilize a managed care arrangement until it has been approved by the Agency for Health Care Administration.

Previewing 2 of 6 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

Key Quotes

“A JCC has no authority or jurisdiction beyond what is specifically conferred by statute.”

Establishes the fundamental principle limiting the JCC's power to what the statute explicitly grants

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Farhangi was employed at Dunkin Donuts when she developed a right arm injury. She initially sought treatment through her health insurance but was dire…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, Na-hid Farhangi, the claimant, challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) which denied appellant’s “motion to strike managed care and/or grievance procedures.” Appellant argues that she should not be limited to the use of providers in the managed care arrangement because she was not provided notice of the managed care arrangement when she was first employed. Finding this argument without merit, we affirm.

Appellant was employed at Dunkin Donuts when she began experiencing difficulty with her right arm. She first sought an appointment with a physician through her health insurance carrier, but was advised by her insurer that, since the injury may be work-related, she was to seek treatment under workers’ compensation coverage. Appellant was authorized a provider through the workers’ compensation managed care arrangement at her place of employment. When she became dissatisfied 'with the treatment provided by this physician,1 she moved to “strike” the managed care arrangement arguing that the arrangement should not be applicable to her because she was not given notice of the managed care arrangement at the time she was hired. The JCC denied the motion finding that the employer and carrier “substantially” complied with the notice requirements and that a delay experienced by the appellant was minimal and did not prejudice the appellant.

Section 440.134(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that effective January 1, 1997, “the employer shall ... furnish to the employee solely through the managed care arrangements such medically necessary remedial treatment, care and attendance for such period as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery provides.” (Emphasis added). An insurer may not offer or utilize a managed care arrangement until it has been approved by the Agency for Health Care Administration. § 440.134(4), Fla. Stat. (1997).

As the appellant correctly observes, under section 440.134(14), an insurer must make “a full and fair disclosure in writing of the provisions, restrictions, and limitations of the workers’ compensation managed care arrangement to affected workers,” including, at least, a description of the providers, a description on emergency or urgent care procedures, a description of the limitation on referrals, and a description of the grievance procedure. § 440.134(14), Fla. Stat. (1997). While notice of the grievance procedures must be given at the time the managed care system is “implemented,” section 440.134(15)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), no time frame for disclosure of the remaining aspects of the managed care arrangement is specifically provided in the statute.

A JCC has no authority or jurisdiction beyond what is specifically conferred by statute. See City of West Palm Beach v. Burbaum, 632 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Appellant has not identified any express statutory authority on which a JCC either could award medical treatment outside of an authorized managed care arrangement or could otherwise “strike” the managed care arrangement. Further, such authority cannot be reasonably inferred from section 440.134, since the statute clearly places the authorization and supervision of managed care ar- rangements within the authority of the Agency for Health Care Administration.

Appellant argues that unless a JCC has the authority to strike the managed care arrangement, the notice requirements under section 440.134(14) are meaningless and unenforceable. These notice requirements of section 440.134(14) are enforceable, however, by the Agency for Health Care Administration. See § 440.134(18)(e), Fla. Stat. (1997). Accordingly, we find the arguments raised on appeal to be without merit and the order under review is AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR. . The record is silent as to whether appellant requested a change of provider as contemplated by section 440.134(10)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), or instituted a grievance under procedures established pursuant to section 440.134(15), Florida Statutes (1997).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (17 total)

  • Jefferson v. Wayne Dalton Corporation/Hartford, 793 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
    …dge of compensation claims is limited in this area because section 440.134 “clearly places the authorization and supervision of managed care' arrangements within the authority of the Agency for Health Care Administration.” Farhangi v. Dunkin Donuts, 728 So. 2d 772, 773-74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Acknowledging that managed care grievance procedures must be exhausted when managed care is provided, Mr. Jefferson argues that an employer or its insurance carrier must first prove that a managed care system was in plac…
  • Pascual Villazano v. Horace Bell Honey Co. & Ameritrust, 928 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
    …ng v. Cottongim, 728 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Appellant correctly asserts that the JCC did not have authority, pursuant to either statute or rule, to set a time limitation for filing the verified petition for fees. Farhangi v. Dunkin Donuts, 728 So. 2d 772, 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (“A JCC has no authority or jurisdiction beyond what is specifically conferred by statute.”); McFadden v. Hardrives Constr., Inc., 573 So. 2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied 583 So. 2d 1035 (Fla.1991) (“Unlike a cou…
  • McARTHUR v. Mental Health Care, 35 So. 3d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
    …a JCC has “no authority or jurisdiction beyond what is specifically conferred by statute” and holding that a JCC has no jurisdiction to sanction an attorney for violating the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct) (quoting Farhangi v. Dunkin Donuts, 728 So. 2d 772, 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)); see also McFadden v. Hardrives Constr., Inc., 573 So. 2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“Unlike a court of general jurisdiction, a [JCC] does not have inherent judicial power but only the power expressly conferred by chap…

Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw