 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Active Spine Centers9/28/2005
>
We agree that on its face, the registration statute does not seem to contemplate the sudden and unexpected death of an owner/licensed supervising healthcare professional. The clinic would thus have us rely on the intent of the legislature when it enacted the registration statute, which is to reduce fraudulent claims in the healthcare industry. However, the statute does contemplate new clinics filing registration forms, and it clearly mandates that they do so "before the inception of operation." Just as the clinic ceased its operation until it replaced Dr. Scholz with Dr. Ruszkowski, it should have filed its registration form before reopening its operation.
Florida's rules of statutory construction require that language be given its plain and ordinary meaning when the language is clear and unambiguous. See Metropolitan Dade Cty. v. Milton, 707 So. 2d 913, 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Courts are not permitted to construe an unambiguous statute in a way which would extend, modify, or limit its express terms or its reasonable and obvious implications. To do so would be an abrogation of legislative power. Id. at 914-915. See also Oruga Corp., Inc. v. AT & T Wireless of Fla., Inc., 712 So. 2d 1141, 1143-44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The language of the registration statute makes it clear that once the clinic lost its exemption, it was required to cease its operations until it registered with the department. Accordingly, the clinic is not entitled to be paid for the unlawful services that were provided during the period in question.
Moreover, the legislative intent behind the registration statute and chapter 456 as a whole supports summary judgment in State Farm's favor. The registration statute was enacted to curtail chiropractic treatment at unlicensed clinics staffed by untrained personnel. See Final Report of the Fifteenth Statewide Grand Jury, Case No. 95,746, Supreme Court of Florida (Nov. 16, 2000). The intent of the registration statute was to preserve "the health, safety and welfare of the public under police powers of the state" because unregulated clinics could "endanger the health, safety, and welfare of the public." See ยง 456.003(2), Fla. Stat. (2001). Only by enforcing the registration statute in circumstances such as this can Florida citizens be protected.
Pursuant to the registration statute's authority, the department issued Florida Administrative Code Rule 64-2.001, as well as a later revision to that rule. For initial registration, the revised rule adopted the statutory sixty-day period from October 1, 2001 (the effective date of the registration statute). The rule further provided that the sixty-day period was inapplicable for registration "prior to the inception of the clinic's operation." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 64-2.001(1)(a). With regard to a change in status, the rule provided that:
In order to maintain a valid registration, each clinic shall within thirty (30) days of a change to the clinic's registration requirements, notify the Department of Health to amend the clinic's registration.
Fla. Admin. Code R. 64-2.001(2)(a).
The clinic now contends for the first time on appeal at oral argument that it was not given the thirty days outlined in the code. This was not argued to the trial court below, thus we will not entertain it on appeal. See Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla. 1985) ("In order to be preserved for further review by a higher court, an issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.").
Accordingly, because courts do not have the authority to rewrite the
Page 1 2 3 4 Florida Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|