J.C.S. v. Agency for Health Care Administration

District Court of Appeal of Florida

J.C.S. v. Agency for Health Care Administration

150 So. 3d 854, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17981, 2014 WL 5652867

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 5, 2014

Docket2D13-3232

StatusPublished

This text of 150 So. 3d 854 (J.C.S. v. Agency for Health Care Administration) 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

J.C.S. v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 150 So. 3d 854, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17981, 2014 WL 5652867 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

*855 ALTENBERND, Judge.

J.C.S. and her husband, J.S.S., appeal a final administrative order that addresses J.C.S.’s health maintenance organization’s failure to provide plan benefits within the contractual time requirements for eligible Medicaid recipients. The relevant contract was entered into between the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), and J.C.S.’s HMO, Wellcare of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Staywell Health Plan of Florida (“Staywell”). We affirm.

In pertinent part, the hearing officer found that Staywell had ultimately secured certain appointments for J.C.S. but that it had not secured these appointments in a timely fashion. The hearing officer concluded, however, that he lacked authority to enter a penalty for Staywell’s failure to provide timely appointments. AHCA argues that the hearing officer’s order was not adverse to either J.C.S. or J.S.S. and, therefore, the appeal must be dismissed as to both appellants because neither has standing to appeal. AHCA cites case law that lends some support to its argument. See, e.g., Bodenstab v. Dep’t of Prof'l Regulation, 648 So.2d 742, 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (“Because the appellant has not been adversely affected by the Board’s action, we dismiss the appeal for lack of standing”).

Athough the order is facially favorable to J.C.S. and J.S.S., they argue that the hearing officer erred in failing to give them additional relief. In essence, their claim is that they were adversely affected by the omission of additional relief. We conclude that at least J.C.S. has standing to raise these issues in this court.

We have reviewed the record and the applicable law. We further conclude that the hearing officer granted J.C.S. and J.S.S. all of the relief that the hearing officer was empowered to provide. In this administrative proceeding, the relevant law simply did not create a claim or provide any right for J.C.S. or J.S.S. to receive the additional remedies or relief that they listed in the initial brief filed with this court. Furthermore, this court cannot grant them relief on claims they raise concerning other matters that occurred subsequent to the entry of this administrative order because they were not the subject of this administrative proceeding and they are not properly before this court.

Affirmed.

KELLY and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

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

*855 ALTENBERND, Judge.

J.C.S. and her husband, J.S.S., appeal a final administrative order that addresses J.C.S.’s health maintenance organization’s failure to provide plan benefits within the contractual time requirements for eligible Medicaid recipients. The relevant contract was entered into between the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), and J.C.S.’s HMO, Wellcare of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Staywell Health Plan of Florida (“Staywell”). We affirm.

In pertinent part, the hearing officer found that Staywell had ultimately secured certain appointments for J.C.S. but that it had not secured these appointments in a timely fashion. The hearing officer concluded, however, that he lacked authority to enter a penalty for Staywell’s failure to provide timely appointments. AHCA argues that the hearing officer’s order was not adverse to either J.C.S. or J.S.S. and, therefore, the appeal must be dismissed as to both appellants because neither has standing to appeal. AHCA cites case law that lends some support to its argument. See, e.g., Bodenstab v. Dep’t of Prof'l Regulation, 648 So.2d 742, 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (“Because the appellant has not been adversely affected by the Board’s action, we dismiss the appeal for lack of standing”).

Athough the order is facially favorable to J.C.S. and J.S.S., they argue that the hearing officer erred in failing to give them additional relief. In essence, their claim is that they were adversely affected by the omission of additional relief. We conclude that at least J.C.S. has standing to raise these issues in this court.

We have reviewed the record and the applicable law. We further conclude that the hearing officer granted J.C.S. and J.S.S. all of the relief that the hearing officer was empowered to provide. In this administrative proceeding, the relevant law simply did not create a claim or provide any right for J.C.S. or J.S.S. to receive the additional remedies or relief that they listed in the initial brief filed with this court. Furthermore, this court cannot grant them relief on claims they raise concerning other matters that occurred subsequent to the entry of this administrative order because they were not the subject of this administrative proceeding and they are not properly before this court.

Affirmed.

KELLY and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 So. 3d 854, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17981, 2014 WL 5652867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jcs-v-agency-for-health-care-administration-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack