FLORIDA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE TRUST F/K/A FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES AND HOLMES CITY ROAD DEPARTMENT, APPELLANTS,
v.
STERLING COOK N/K/A NORTH AMERICAN RISK SERVICES AND HOLMES CITY ROAD DEPARTMENT, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal addresses a workers' compensation reimbursement dispute between two insurance carriers over payment of claimant benefits and medical expenses. The court affirms the JCC's evidentiary rulings and acceptance of expert testimony, but reverses the JCC's finding that the first carrier failed to timely contest psychiatric treatment costs.
The court affirmed the JCC's admission of Dr. Vervoort's testimony and acceptance of his opinions over Dr. Williams' opinions. However, the court reversed the finding that carrier one failed to timely contest the claim, holding that carrier one's objection was timely because a party cannot contest a claim until it has knowledge of the specific claim.
[1] A party cannot object to or contest a claim until it has knowledge of the specific bills and costs for which reimbursement is sought.
[2] A general denial of responsibility for medical treatment and benefits is insufficient to contest a claim when the party lacks knowledge of specific bills and costs.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A party cannot object to or contest a claim until it has knowledge of it.”
Establishes the foundational legal principle that timeliness of objection is measured from when the party learns of the specific claim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlorida Municipal Insurance Trust (carrier one) and Sterling Cook n/k/a North American Risk Services (carrier two) disputed responsibility for workers…
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 Reimbursement Between Carriers cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Florida Municipal Insurance Trust f(k/a/ Florida League of Cities (“carrier one”) appeals the order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”) requiring reimbursement to Sterling Cook n/k/a North American Risk Services (“carrier two”) for claimant’s benefits and medical expenses that carrier two paid. Carrier one argues on appeal that the JCC erred in (1) overruling its objection to admission of Dr. Vervoort’s deposition testimony, (2) accepting Dr. Vervoort’s opinions over those of Dr. Williams, and (3) finding that carrier one is responsible for reimbursing carrier two the cost of the claimant’s psychiatric treatment because carrier one did not timely contest the claim.
We affirm the JCC’s admission of Dr. Vervoort’s testimony at the final hearing and the acceptance of the doctor’s opinions over those of Dr. Williams without further comment. We reverse, however, the portion of the JCC’s order requiring carrier one to reimburse carrier two’s payment of claimant’s psychiatric treatment because carrier one timely contested the claim.
The record reveals that carrier two requested reimbursement in general terms from carrier one, and carrier one in turn denied responsibility for claimant’s medical treatment and other benefits in general terms as well. There is no evidence in the record that carrier one was aware of the specific bills and costs for which carrier two sought reimbursement until it received carrier two’s pay ledger after filing the pre-trial stipulation.
A party cannot object to or contest a claim until it has knowledge of it. Cf. Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Polchinski, 636 So. 2d 1369, 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (stating that “[a] timely objection is essential if the party has knowledge of the erroneous conduct at the time it occurred”). Under the circumstances, carrier one’s “objection” to carrier two’s claim for reimbursement of the cost of psychiatric treatment was timely. Accordingly, we reverse the JCC’s order in this regard and remand for consideration of carrier two’s claim for reimbursement of the cost of claimant’s psychiatric treatment on the merits.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
VAN NORTWICK, POLSTON AND THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sears Roebuck & Co. & Chris Picardi & Kent Spires v. Polchinski, 636 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)