Beenhakker v. State, Division of State Group Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Beenhakker v. State, Division of State Group Insurance

723 So. 2d 360, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15989, 1998 WL 889282

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 23, 1998

DocketNo. 98-00719

StatusPublished

This text of 723 So. 2d 360 (Beenhakker v. State, Division of State Group Insurance) 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

Beenhakker v. State, Division of State Group Insurance, 723 So. 2d 360, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15989, 1998 WL 889282 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Arie and Ann Beenhakker, his wife, appeal the denial by the Division of State Group Insurance of their request for a formal hearing made after their claims for benefits under the State of Florida Employees’ Group Health Self-Insurance Plan were denied.

The Division denied the request for a formal hearing on the basis that the request was untimely. The request was received by the Division twenty-three days after the Beenhakkers’ counsel received notice of agency action denying payment of the subject claims. The Division contends that the Beenhakkers had only twenty-one days to respond. The problem for the Division is that its notice to the Beenhakkers’ counsel was ambiguous as to the time frame in which to respond. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this matter for a formal hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

BLUE, AC.J., WHATLEY and GREEN, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Arie and Ann Beenhakker, his wife, appeal the denial by the Division of State Group Insurance of their request for a formal hearing made after their claims for benefits under the State of Florida Employees’ Group Health Self-Insurance Plan were denied.

The Division denied the request for a formal hearing on the basis that the request was untimely. The request was received by the Division twenty-three days after the Beenhakkers’ counsel received notice of agency action denying payment of the subject claims. The Division contends that the Beenhakkers had only twenty-one days to respond. The problem for the Division is that its notice to the Beenhakkers’ counsel was ambiguous as to the time frame in which to respond. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this matter for a formal hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

BLUE, AC.J., WHATLEY and GREEN, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

723 So. 2d 360, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15989, 1998 WL 889282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beenhakker-v-state-division-of-state-group-insurance-fladistctapp-1998.