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

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 18, 2011

Docket1D10-3794

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 67 So. 3d 353 (Amerisure Insurance Company-Fl v. Martin Memorial Medical) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 So. 3d 353, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11179, 2011 WL 2752622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amerisure-insurance-company-fl-v-martin-memorial-medical-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack