Amerisure Insurance Company-Fl v. Martin Memorial Medical

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Amerisure Insurance Company-Fl v. Martin Memorial Medical

67 So. 3d 353, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11179, 2011 WL 2752622

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 18, 2011·No. 1D10-3794·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a workers’ compensation carrier, challenges a final order from the Workers’ Compensation Division of the Department for Financial Services (the Department). The order found that Appellant did not properly reimburse Appel-lee, a hospital, for its care of an injured employee. We hold the Department lacked "subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the Petition for Reimbursement as the medical benefits were denied based on the non-compensability of the worker’s heart condition. See § 440.13(11)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010) (providing the Department with exclusive jurisdiction over reimbursement disputes and overutilization); see also Westinghouse Elec. v. Widlan, 623 So.2d 511 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (holding a Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) has jurisdiction over issues concerning compensa-bility); Carswell v. Broderick Constr., 583 So.2d 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (explaining the responsibilities and duties of the Department versus a JCC). Consequently, we REVERSE and REMAND to the Department for dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

HAWKES, THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a workers’ compensation carrier, challenges a final order from the Workers’ Compensation Division of the Department for Financial Services (the Department). The order found that Appellant did not properly reimburse Appel-lee, a hospital, for its care of an injured employee. We hold the Department lacked "subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the Petition for Reimbursement as the medical benefits were denied based on the non-compensability of the worker’s heart condition. See § 440.13(11)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010) (providing the Department with exclusive jurisdiction over reimbursement disputes and overutilization); see also Westinghouse Elec. v. Widlan, 623 So.2d 511 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (holding a Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) has jurisdiction over issues concerning compensa-bility); Carswell v. Broderick Constr., 583 So.2d 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (explaining the responsibilities and duties of the Department versus a JCC). Consequently, we REVERSE and REMAND to the Department for dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

HAWKES, THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

Amerisure Insurance Company-Fl v. Martin Memorial Medical, 67 So. 3d 353, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11179, 2011 WL 2752622 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

67 So. 3d 353 (Amerisure Insurance Company-Fl v. Martin Memorial Medical) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related