UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
M.A., A MINOR, ETC., ET AL., 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 University of Miami petitioned for a writ of certiorari to quash a circuit court's denial of their motion to abate a birth-related neurological injury lawsuit. The court held that under Florida's Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Act, an administrative law judge has exclusive jurisdiction to determine compensability, including threshold immunity issues, and granted the petition.
An administrative law judge, not the circuit court, has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a claim under NICA is compensable, and this includes all issues relating to health provider immunity and notice requirements. The circuit court's denial of the motion to abate departed from the essential requirements of law.
[1] An administrative law judge, not the circuit court, has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a claim filed under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp…
[2] Issues concerning the immunity of a health provider under NICA, including whether notice requirements were satisfied, are to be decided by the administrative law judge as…
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“an administrative law judge, not the circuit court, has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a claim filed under NICA is compensable”
Establishes the core holding that administrative proceedings, not circuit court litigation, govern NICA claims from the outset
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners filed a motion to abate an action in circuit court pending an administrative determination of compensability under the Florida Birth-Relat…
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 Stare Decisis cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioners filed this petition for writ of certiorari seeking, in part, to quash the order denying their motion to abate the action filed in the circuit court until the administrative law judge determined whether the claim was compensable under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Act [NICA], sections 766.301-.316, Florida Statutes (Supp.1998). We grant the petition.
Pursuant to sections 766.301(l)(d) and 766.304, Florida Statutes (Supp.1998),1 an administrative law judge, not the circuit court, has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a claim filed under NICA is compensable. We adopt the decision in O’Leary v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Ass’n, 757 So. 2d 624, 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), in which the Fifth District held that “any issue raising the immunity of a health provider, including the issue of whether the health provider satisfied the notice requirements of the [NICA] Plan is an issue to be decided by the administrative law judge as one which relates to the question of whether the claim is compensable under the Plan.” Therefore, the denial of the motion to abate the action in circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law. See Miami Physical Therapy Assocs., Inc. v. Savage, 632 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari quashing the order denying the motion to abate.
We remind the trial court that it was obligated to follow O’Leary because neither the Supreme Court of Florida nor this Court had decided this precise issue subsequent to the 1998 amendments of sections 766.301(l)(d) and 766.304. See Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla.1992); Anderson v. Anderson, 746 So. 2d 525, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), review granted, 760 So. 2d 945 (Fla.2000).
As a result of our decision, we do not address the alternative petition filed by the petitioners.
Petition for writ of certiorari granted.
. In 1998, sections 766.301(l)(d) and 766.304, Ch. 98.113, were amended. Section 766.301 (l)(d) was amended to add the following language: "The issue of whether such claims are covered by this act must be determined exclusively in an administrative proceeding.” Section 766.304 was amended, in part, to add the following language:
The administrative law judge has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a claim filed under this act is compensable. No civil action may be brought until the determinations under s. 766.309 have been made by the administrative law judge. If the administrative law judge determines that the claimant is entitled to compensation from the association, no civil action may be brought or continued in violation of the exclusiveness of remedy provisions of s. 766.303....
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n v. Florida Division OF Administrative Hearings, 948 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 2007)…g the subject matter jurisdiction of administrative law judges under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Act as found in sections 766.301 through 766.316, Florida Statutes (1997 & Supp.1998) (NICA). See Univ. of Miami v. M.A., 793 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Gugelmin v. Div. of Admin. Hearings, 815 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Behan v. Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass’n, 664 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); O’Leary v. Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. As…1 / 2
-
ALL Child's. Hosp., Inc. v. Dep't OF Admin. Hearings, 863 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…th O’Leary, we also differ with the decision of the Fourth District in Behan v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Ass’n, 664 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), and the decision of the Third District in University of Miami v. M.A., 793 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Behan holds that the adequacy of a provider’s notice under NICA must be determined by the ALJ before he can assume jurisdiction to make a compensability determination. 664 So. 2d at 1174. M.A. relies on O’Leary in holding that th…
-
Clarice Tabb v. Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n & Grace Valente, M.D., 880 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…f whether the health provider satisfied the notice requirements of the Plan is an issue to be decided by the administrative law judge as one which relates to the question of whether the claim is compensable under the Plan.”); Univ. of Miami v. M.A., 793 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (adopting decision in O’Leary). See also Gugelmin v. Div. of Admin. Hearings, 815 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Behan v. Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass’n, 664 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Appellant Tabb di…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992)
- Timothy D. O'Leary, M.D. v. Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n, 757 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Miami Physical Therapy Assocs., Inc. v. Savage, 632 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 746 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)