Nadia Garcon v. Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

Supreme Court of Florida

Nadia Garcon v. Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

150 So. 3d 1101, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 663, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 3294, 2014 WL 5800868

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedNovember 6, 2014

DocketSC12-2406

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 150 So. 3d 1101 (Nadia Garcon v. Florida Agency for Health Care Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nadia Garcon v. Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, 150 So. 3d 1101, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 663, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 3294, 2014 WL 5800868 (Fla. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We accepted jurisdiction to review the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Garcon v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 96 So.3d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), based on express and direct conflict with Smith v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 24 So.3d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), and Roberts v. Albertson’s, Inc., 119 So.3d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), on the issue of whether a plaintiff should be afforded the opportunity to demonstrate that a Medicaid lien exceeds the amount recovered by the plaintiff for medical expenses. 1 See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Prior to filing an answer brief in this case, the Respondent filed an unopposed motion to remand for further proceedings in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Wos v. E.M.A., — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 1391, 185 L.Ed.2d 471 (2013), which both parties agree is now determinative of this case.

The Respondent concedes that, in light of Wos, the Third District’s decision in Garcon is erroneous, and this case should be remanded to the circuit court to reconsider its decision. After a review of the filings, and the parties’ arguments, we grant the Respondent’s unopposed motion and quash the Third District’s decision. We direct that this case be remanded to the Third District to return the case to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Wos.

It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, and PERRY, JJ„ concur. CANADY and POLSTON, JJ„ dissent.

1

. After this Court accepted jurisdiction, the First District Court of Appeal decided Harrell v. State, 143 So.3d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), in which the First District agreed with the decisions of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Smith and the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Roberts, thereby also creating conflict with the Third District’s decision in Garcon.

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

PER CURIAM.

We accepted jurisdiction to review the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Garcon v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 96 So.3d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), based on express and direct conflict with Smith v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 24 So.3d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), and Roberts v. Albertson’s, Inc., 119 So.3d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), on the issue of whether a plaintiff should be afforded the opportunity to demonstrate that a Medicaid lien exceeds the amount recovered by the plaintiff for medical expenses. 1 See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Prior to filing an answer brief in this case, the Respondent filed an unopposed motion to remand for further proceedings in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Wos v. E.M.A., — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 1391, 185 L.Ed.2d 471 (2013), which both parties agree is now determinative of this case.

The Respondent concedes that, in light of Wos, the Third District’s decision in Garcon is erroneous, and this case should be remanded to the circuit court to reconsider its decision. After a review of the filings, and the parties’ arguments, we grant the Respondent’s unopposed motion and quash the Third District’s decision. We direct that this case be remanded to the Third District to return the case to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Wos.

It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, and PERRY, JJ„ concur. CANADY and POLSTON, JJ„ dissent.

1

. After this Court accepted jurisdiction, the First District Court of Appeal decided Harrell v. State, 143 So.3d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), in which the First District agreed with the decisions of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Smith and the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Roberts, thereby also creating conflict with the Third District’s decision in Garcon.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 So. 3d 1101, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 663, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 3294, 2014 WL 5800868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nadia-garcon-v-florida-agency-for-health-care-administration-fla-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack