← Case library
FL Supreme CourtMay 26, 2022Certified question answered in the negative; Second District result approved⭐ Notable

Laboratory Corporation of America v. Davis; Sheridan Radiology Services of Pinellas, Inc. v. Davis

Case No. SC19-1923 & SC19-1936

An injured worker sued two medical providers under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act after they billed her directly for treatment that should have been billed to the workers' compensation carrier. The providers argued that section 440.13(11)(c) of the Workers' Compensation Law gave the Department of Financial Services exclusive jurisdiction over 'any matters concerning reimbursement.' The Florida Supreme Court held that 'reimbursement' means payment by a carrier to a provider, not direct billing of an injured worker, so circuit court jurisdiction over the FCCPA claims is undisturbed.

Key facts

  • Laboratory Corporation of America and Sheridan Radiology Services billed an injured worker directly for workers' compensation treatment instead of billing the workers' compensation carrier as required by law.
  • The injured worker sued the two medical providers under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act in circuit court for improper billing practices.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

The decision confirms that injured workers may pursue FCCPA claims in circuit court against health care providers who improperly bill them directly, rather than being channeled into DFS administrative proceedings — a… — full analysis with a trial

🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.