Shridhar D. Marathe v. Molina Healthcare of Florida, Inc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: October 16, 2024
• Docket: 3D2023-2102
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed October 16, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-2102 Lower Tribunal No. 23-FH1627 ________________

Shridhar D. Marathe, Appellant,

vs.

Molina Healthcare of Florida, Inc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, Office of Fair Hearings.

Shriram Marathe, for appellant.

Lombard Law, Eduardo S. Lombard, and Melissa Hedrick (Tallahassee), for appellee.

Before SCALES, MILLER, and GOODEN, JJ.

MILLER, J. We have for review a final order entered by the Florida Agency for

Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) against Shridhar D. Marathe affirming

the denial of an additional thirty hours of respite care services. Molina

Healthcare of Florida, Inc. denied Marathe, a centenarian who is suffering

from a myriad of medical conditions and is essentially non-ambulatory, extra

services he requested during the week his son, a physician, was traveling

for work-related purposes. In affirming the denial, the AHCA hearing officer

erroneously attributed testimony by a layperson to a physician and found that

the physician “provided credible and persuasive testimony that . . . the

approved level of services . . . are sufficient to meet [Marathe’s] needs.”

Although this error pervades the factual findings, we are foreclosed from any

further review of this appeal. Marathe requested services for fixed dates that

have long passed, and he neither requested nor admitted any evidence

entitling him to reimbursement or any other available remedy. See Fla.

Admin. Code R. 59G-1.100(2)(f) (defining “[c]orrective [a]ction” as corrective

payments or, if appropriate, admission or readmission to a facility in

accordance with federal regulations); Fla. Admin. Code R. 59G-1.100(17)(p)

(authorizing corrective payments for an “already-provided service”). Marathe

recognized this fact at the administrative hearing but contended that he

wished to prevent similar denials in the future. We conclude “the controversy

2 has been so fully resolved that a judicial determination can have no actual

effect.” Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1992). As we have further

failed to identify any “collateral legal consequences that affect the rights of a

party flow[ing] from the issue to be determined,” id., and a finding as to any

future denial is not yet ripe for determination, we dismiss the appeal, see,

e.g., George v. Dep’t of Corr., 278 So. 3d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (declining

to reach issue that “is not ripe for determination” because such claim was

“little more than an unauthorized request for an advisory opinion”) (quoting

McMullen v. Bennis, 20 So. 3d 890, 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)); see also

Merkle v. Guardianship of Jacoby, 912 So. 2d 595, 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)

(“With limited exceptions not material here, Florida’s appellate courts are not

authorized to issue advisory opinions.”).

Appeal dismissed.