Division of Workers' Compensation, Dept. of Labor & Employment Sec. v. McKee, AG-301
| Decision Date | 26 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. AG-301,AG-301 |
| Citation | 413 So.2d 805 |
| Parties | DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Appellant, v. James I. McKEE, James Cone and Ray Cralle, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael J. Rudicell, Dept. of Labor and Employment Security, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Leslie King O'Neal, of Markel, Scott, McDonough & O'Neal, Orlando, for appellees.
Appellant seeks review of an administrative order declaring invalid portions of proposed agency rules relating to medical fees governed by Florida's Workers' Compensation Act. 1 We conclude that a § 120.54(4)(a), Florida Statutes, administrative rule challenge, rather than a circuit court action as appellant suggests, was the proper method for challenging the proposed rules, and we further conclude that the hearing officer correctly determined that the proposed rules, as they relate to physical therapists' fees, are invalid due to the absence of a § 120.54(2)(a), Florida Statutes, economic impact statement. The absence of such an economic impact statement may be harmless error if it is established that the proposed action will have no economic impact, or that the agency fully considered the asserted economic factors and impact, see Florida-Texas Freight, Inc. v. Hawkins, 379 So.2d 944 (Fla.1980); Polk v. School Board of Polk County, 373 So.2d 960 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979); however, these circumstances were not shown to exist in the present case. The absence of an economic impact statement is therefore grounds for invalidity of those portions of the proposed rules relating to physical therapists' fees. See § 120.54(2)(c). It is thus unnecessary for this court to consider, and we expressly decline to address, the appropriateness of the proposed state-wide maximum fee schedule for workers' compensation medical payments.
The order appealed is affirmed.
1 See § 440.13(3)(a), Florida Statutes.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State, Dept. of Ins. v. Insurance Services Office, VV-367
...same gross income from essentially the same insureds, the added costs will be inconsequential. See Division of Workers' Compensation, etc. v. McKee, 413 So.2d 805, 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). But more fundamentally, section 120.54(2)(a) cannot reasonably be read as requiring the Department to ......
-
West Virginia Chiropractic Soc., Inc. v. Merritt
...similar to ours have found that such schedules must be promulgated under their acts. In Division of Workers' Compensation Dept. of Labor & Employment Sec. v. McKee, 413 So.2d 805 (Fla.App.1982), a proposed agency rule relating to physical therapists' fees was declared invalid on a threshold......
-
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Wright
...statement, thereby obviating consideration of his ruling on the statutory authority for the rule. See Division of Workers' Compensation v. McKee, 413 So.2d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); General Development Utilities Inc. v. Florida Public Service Commission, 385 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA For this......
-
Cataract Surgery Center v. Health Care Cost Containment Bd.
...of its action or if it is established that the agency's proposed action will have no economic impact. See Division of Workers' Compensation v. McKee, 413 So.2d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Polk School Bd. of Polk County, 373 So.2d 960 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979). The harmless error doctrine will be app......