Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund v. Hameroff, 96-2172
| Citation | 689 So.2d 358 |
| Decision Date | 18 February 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-2172,96-2172 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D497 PUBLIC MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TRUST FUND, et al., Appellants, v. Nathan M. HAMEROFF, M.D., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Eric J. Taylor, Assistant Attorney General; James A. Peters, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellants.
Murray B. Silverstein of Powell, Carney, Hayes & Silverstein, P.A., St. Petersburg; Cynthia A. Mikos of Jacobs, Forlizzo & Neal, P.A., Clearwater, for Appellees.
Appellants challenge a non-final order which certified a class for the purpose of a constitutional challenge of the "assessment" established in section 395.7015(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), to fund (Florida's) Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund (PMATF), section 395.701, Florida Statutes (1993), et seq. We have jurisdiction, rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vii), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and we affirm on the authority of Dept. of Revenue v. Kuhnlein, 646 So.2d 717 (Fla.1994).
Section 395.7015(2)(b) provides for the assessment of 1.5 percent of the annual net operating revenue of hospitals and other "health care entities" operating in the state for the purpose of funding the PMATF. Plaintiffs/appellees, an individual physician and several professional service corporations each comprising a group practice of physicians, filed a complaint for equitable relief and damages individually, and on behalf of the class of others similarly situated, asserting that the PMATF assessment was unconstitutional. Appellants opposed certification essentially on the ground that the plaintiffs were not sufficiently similarly situated to the proposed class and that they had failed to first comply with section 215.26, Florida Statutes, by paying the assessment and then applying for a refund thereof. After hearing argument on the matter, the lower court granted class certification upon a finding that all plaintiffs believed they were improperly designated as "[d]iagnostic-imaging centers" under section 395.7015(2)(b)4., Florida Statutes (1993), which resulted in plaintiffs being classified as "health care entities" and, thus, being made subject to the PMATF assessment.
On appeal, the appellants argue that those plaintiffs/appellees who have not sought and been denied a refund of the PMATF assessment have no standing to serve as class representatives because compliance with the refund procedure in section 215.26, Florida Statutes (1993), is necessary before a civil action for refund may be filed. Appellees argue in response, and we agree, that under Dept. of Revenue v. Kuhnlein, 646 So.2d 717 (Fla.1994), compliance with the refund procedure is not required as a condition of bringing the instant action.
In Kuhnlein certain Florida residents challenged the constitutionality of an impact fee imposed on cars purchased outof-state but later registered in Florida. In Kuhnlein, as here, the state contended that the class action was barred because none of the class representatives had applied for a refund pursuant to sections 215.26 and 26.012(2)(e). Kuhnlein, 646 So.2d at 721. The supreme court expressly rejected this argument:
We ... do not believe there is any requirement that the plaintiff must pay thefee or request a refund, at least in the present case. The fact that these plaintiffs face penalties for failure to pay an allegedly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reinish v. Clark, 1D98-3973.
...refund procedures is not a condition precedent to bringing a constitutionally-based refund action." Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund v. Hameroff, 689 So.2d 358, 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), approved in pertinent part, 736 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1999); Department of Revenue v. Nemeth, 733 So.2d 970......
-
Department of Revenue v. Nemeth
...requires a party first to seek and be denied a tax refund before filing suit for a refund. See Nemeth; Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund v. Hameroff, 689 So.2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Other courts have held in accord with Victor Chemical that a taxpayer must file a claim for a refund pu......
-
State, Dept. of Highway Safety v. Sarnoff
...a constitutionally-based refund suit. See, e.g., Reinish v. Clark, 765 So.2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund v. Hameroff, 689 So.2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), approved in part, 736 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1999); P.R. Marketing Group, Inc. v. GTE Florida, Inc., 747 So.2d ......
-
PR MARKETING GROUP v. GTE Florida, Inc.
...apply for a refund before invoking the circuit court's jurisdiction), rev'd, 732 So.2d 322 (Fla.1999); Pub. Medical Assistance Trust Fund v. Hameroff, 689 So.2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(holding that fulfilling state's refund procedures is not a condition precedent to bringing a constitutiona......
-
Getting your fair share back: recovering money paid pursuant to unconstitutional taxes and fees.
...to extend the limitation beyond the facts which were presented in Tenney. (12) In Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund v. Hameroff, 689 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1997), the court recognized Dep't of Revenue v. Kuhnlein, 646 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1994), as creating an exception to its Devlin (1......