Sterling v. Seminole County School Board

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sterling v. Seminole County School Board

847 So. 2d 1004, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 5244, 2003 WL 1872490

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 15, 2003

DocketNo. 1D02-156

StatusPublished

This text of 847 So. 2d 1004 (Sterling v. Seminole County School Board) 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

Sterling v. Seminole County School Board, 847 So. 2d 1004, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 5244, 2003 WL 1872490 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case poses a question of first impression whether a petition for benefits seeking palliative care and treatment only, as opposed to remedial care and treatment, is subject to the managed-care grievance procedures. It is appellant’s position that because his petition for benefits sought only palliative care, he was not required to exhaust the managed-care grievance procedures prior to filing his petition. The judge of compensation claims (JCC) found otherwise and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, because appellant had not exhausted the grievance procedures before filing the petition, as required by section 440.192(3), Florida Statutes (1997). We find no basis to distinguish between petitions seeking remedial, as opposed to palliative, care for the purpose of complying with section 440.192(3).

[1005]*1005Because appellant did not exhaust the managed-care grievance procedures prior to filing his petition, the JCC lacked jurisdiction to consider the claim and properly dismissed it. See Castro v. AT & T Wireless Servs., 780 So.2d 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, BOOTH and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case poses a question of first impression whether a petition for benefits seeking palliative care and treatment only, as opposed to remedial care and treatment, is subject to the managed-care grievance procedures. It is appellant’s position that because his petition for benefits sought only palliative care, he was not required to exhaust the managed-care grievance procedures prior to filing his petition. The judge of compensation claims (JCC) found otherwise and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, because appellant had not exhausted the grievance procedures before filing the petition, as required by section 440.192(3), Florida Statutes (1997). We find no basis to distinguish between petitions seeking remedial, as opposed to palliative, care for the purpose of complying with section 440.192(3).

[1005]*1005Because appellant did not exhaust the managed-care grievance procedures prior to filing his petition, the JCC lacked jurisdiction to consider the claim and properly dismissed it. See Castro v. AT & T Wireless Servs., 780 So.2d 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, BOOTH and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

847 So. 2d 1004, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 5244, 2003 WL 1872490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sterling-v-seminole-county-school-board-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack