FLAGLER HOSPITAL INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY, AND DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 affirmed that the Workers' Compensation Division lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a health care provider's claim for reimbursement of medical bills when the compensability of the underlying injury has not yet been established.
The Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation lacks jurisdiction over a medical provider's claim for reimbursement of medical bills until compensability of the underlying claim is established.
[1] A workers' compensation administrative agency lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a medical provider's claim for reimbursement of medical services until the compensabi…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlagler Hospital, a health care provider, sought reimbursement of medical bills through the Workers' Compensation Division. The Division found it lack…
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 Compensability cases and more on FLexlaw
The Appellant, a health care provider, challenges a final order from the Workers’ Compensation Division of the Department for Financial Services (the Department), which found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. We AFFIRM because the Department lacks jurisdiction over a claim for the reimbursement of medical bills until the compensability of the claim is established. Compare Amerisure Ins. Co.-Fl. v. Martin Mem’l Med. Ctr., 67 So.3d 353, 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding the Department does not have jurisdiction over medical provider’s claim for reimbursement of medical charges where compensability of injury for which services were provided is in dispute), with Bryan LGH Med. Ctr. v. Fla. Beauty Flora, 36 So.3d 795, 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding Judge of Compensation Claims does not have jurisdiction over reimbursement dispute actionable under section 440.13(7)(a)). Here, because compensability has yet to be established, the health care provider’s claim does not fall within the Department’s jurisdiction. We find the Appellant’s constitutional challenges premised on the right to access to courts unavailing because the record before us fails to establish that the Appellant has been foreclosed from all other avenues of redress for its outstanding bills.
AFFIRMED.
BENTON, PADOVANO, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Amerisure Ins. Company-Fl v. Martin Mem'l Med. & Dep't of Fin. Servs., 67 So. 3d 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Bryan LGH Med. Ctr. v. Fla. Beauty Flora, Inc., 36 So. 3d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)