From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Foundation Health v. Garcia-Rivera

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 1, 2002
814 So. 2d 537 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Summary

finding that class action proceedings may be appropriate despite arbitration provisions in agreements between providers and HMOs

Summary of this case from Merkle v. Health Options, Inc.

Opinion

No. 3D01-1695.

May 1, 2002.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Michael Chavies, Judge.

Diane H. Tutt (Plantation); Steven M. Zeigler and Arthur Cholodofsky (Hollywood); Epstein, Becker Green and Daly D.E. Temchine (Washington, D.C.), for appellants.

Laurie Waldman Ross and Theresa L. Girten; Robert C. Maland; Jack Herskowitz, for appellees.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GREEN and RAMIREZ, JJ.


As in the meaningfully indistinguishable case of Colonial Penn Insurance Co. v. Magnetic Imaging Systems, I, Ltd., 694 So.2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), the trial court properly certified a class of contract providers to the appellant HMOs in an action for the alleged violation of the "prompt pay" provisions of section 641.3155, Florida Statutes (1999). The appellants' claim that class proceedings are inappropriate because of the existence of arbitration clauses in some of the agreements between the defendants and the providers was both waived below, see Arvida/JMB Partners v. Council of Villages, Inc., 733 So.2d 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), review denied, 732 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1999); Hansen v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 408 So.2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 417 So.2d 328 (Fla. 1982), and is without substantive merit. See Burns v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 145 Ohio App.3d 424, 763 N.E.2d 234 (2001) (proper exercise of discretion to conclude that class action preferable to multiple individual arbitration proceedings).

641.3155 Provider contracts; payment of claims.
(1)(a) A health maintenance organization shall pay any claim or any portion of a claim made by a contract provider for services or goods provided under a contract with the health maintenance organization which the organization does not contest or deny within 35 days after receipt of the claim by the health maintenance organization which is mailed or electronically transferred by the provider.
(b) A health maintenance organization that denies or contests a provider's claim shall notify the contract provider, in writing, within 35 days after receipt of the claim by the health maintenance organization that the claim is contested or denied. The notice that the claim is denied or contested must identify the contested portion of the claim and the specific reason for contesting or denying the claim, and may include a request for additional information. If the health maintenance organization requests additional information, the provider shall, within 35 days after receipt of such request, mail or electronically transfer the information to the health maintenance organization. The health maintenance organization shall pay or deny the claim or portion of the claim within 45 days after receipt of the information.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Foundation Health v. Garcia-Rivera

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 1, 2002
814 So. 2d 537 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

finding that class action proceedings may be appropriate despite arbitration provisions in agreements between providers and HMOs

Summary of this case from Merkle v. Health Options, Inc.

affirming certification of class

Summary of this case from Foundation Health v. Garcia-Rivera

In Foundation Health v. Garcia-Rivera, M.D., 814 So.2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), a class action by contract providers for violation of the Act's "prompt pay" provisions, issued prior to Villazon, the Third District recognized that service providers have a right to sue HMOs. The court reasoned that its decision was "meaningfully indistinguishable" from Colonial Penn Insurance Co. v. Magnetic Imaging Systems I, Ltd., 694 So.2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), which approved a class action against the insurer for violation of the PIP prompt pay statute.

Summary of this case from Westside EKG Associates v. Foundation Health
Case details for

Foundation Health v. Garcia-Rivera

Case Details

Full title:FOUNDATION HEALTH, A FLORIDA HEALTH PLAN, INC., et al., Appellants, v…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: May 1, 2002

Citations

814 So. 2d 537 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Citing Cases

Westside EKG Associates v. Foundation Health

See § 641.185, Fla. Stat. In Foundation Health v. Garcia-Rivera, M.D., 814 So.2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), a…

Merkle v. Health Options, Inc.

Instead, the AHCA directed the parties to bring this issue before a `court of competent jurisdiction or the…