Injured Worker May Proceed Under Florida’s Consumer Practices Act Against Her Medical Providers

In a divided decision, a Florida appellate court found that a state trial court had erred when it dismissed an action filed by an injured worker against her workers’ compensation medical providers under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) [§ 559.77(1), Fla. Stat.] on the grounds that it was barred by a jurisdictional provision in the state’s Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL) [Davis v. Sheridan Healthcare, Inc., 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 15461 (2d DCA, Oct. 16, 2019)]. The question was, however, also certified to the Supreme Court of Florida.

The Workers’ Compensation Law Provision

The provision in question, § 440.13(11)(c), Fla. Stat., grants exclusive jurisdiction to the state’s Department of Financial Services over “any matters concerning reimbursement.” Plaintiff had alleged, inter alia, that her providers had engaged in abusive billing practices in continuing to demand payment and involve a collection agency after being informed that she was a workers’ compensation patient and not responsible for the fees. The trial court found that the case involved a “matter concerning reimbursement” and, therefore, was barred by § 440.13(11)(c).

Distinction Between “Reimbursement” and “Collection”

The majority drew a distinction between a matter of “reimbursement” and a “collection” activity. According to the majority, they did not mean the same thing. To “reimburse,” said the majority, meant to repay or to restore. The majority added that the term was often synonymous with indemnification and was typically used to express repayment by a third party not directly involved in the transaction. In contrast, the majority said that to “collect” meant to gather or exact or to claim as due and receive payment. Collection was not the same concept or type of activity as reimbursement, even if a transaction sometimes involved both.

Consumer Claim Has Three Triggers

The majority continued that a claim under § 559.72(9), Fla. Stat., had three elements or triggers:

1. An illegitimate debt,
2. A threat or attempt to enforce that debt, and
3. Knowledge that the debt is illegitimate.

Specific Governs the General

The majority added that generally, where a specific provision conflicted with a general one, the specific governed. Here, the Consumer Protection Practices Act was the more specific, as the statutes pertained to the plaintiff’s allegations.

Question of Great Public Importance

The majority concluded by certifying to the Florida Supreme Court the following question of great public importance pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v):

DOES SECTION 440.13(11)(c) OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDE CIRCUIT COURT JURISDICTION OVER CLAIMS UNDER SECTION 559.77(1) OF THE FLORIDA CONSUMER COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT?

It will be some time, of course, before the question is passed upon by the Florida high court. Stay tuned.