Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
A Florida trial court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a civil action filed by an injured worker against her workers’ compensation medical providers under the state’s Consumer Collection Practices Act was error, held a state appellate court recently, in a divided decision. The trial court found that § 440.13(11)(c), Fla. Stat., granted exclusive jurisdiction to the state’s Department of Financial Services over “any matters concerning reimbursement.” Since the trial court determined that the injured worker’s complaint dealt with such matters of reimbursement, it said the suit was barred. The majority of the appellate court disagreed, noting the strong difference between “reimbursement” and “collection.” The alleged wrong committed by the medical care providers (and their agents) pertained to collection and the claim was not barred.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Davis v. Sheridan Healthcare, Inc., 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 15461 (2d DCA, Oct. 16, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 112.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see