Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
SOUTHERN OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Jaclyn HENDRICKSON, Respondent.
Petitioner, Southern Owners Insurance Company, seeks second-tier certiorari review of the circuit court's order affirming the county court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Respondent, Jaclyn Hendrickson. We agree that the circuit court's order ignores the plain meaning of section 627.736(1)(a)5., Florida Statutes, and violates a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari.
In the underlying county court case, Respondent sought reimbursement for services provided by a person agreed upon by both parties to be a “licensed massage therapist.” The controlling law on this subject clearly states that, “[m]edical benefits do not include massage as defined in s. 480.033 or acupuncture as defined in s. 457.102, regardless of the person, entity, or licensee providing massage or acupuncture, and a licensed massage therapist or licensed acupuncturist may not be reimbursed for medical benefits under this section.” § 627.736(1)(a)5., Fla. Stat. Other Florida courts have recognized that this statute excludes licensed massage therapists from being reimbursed for medical benefits. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Beacon Healthcare Ctr., Inc., 298 So.3d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 26, 2020); McCarty v. Myers, 125 So. 3d 333, 335 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
The plain text of section 627.736(1)(a)5. precludes a licensed massage therapist from being reimbursed for medical benefits. In its ruling, the circuit court ignored the plain language of the statute and violated this clearly established principle of the law. Furthermore, the circuit court's ruling resulted in a miscarriage of justice because Petitioner is now liable for a medical benefit that the law explicitly prohibits. Consequently, we find second-tier certiorari relief is appropriate, and grant the petition. See Nader v. Fla. Dep't of High. Saf. & Motor Veh., 87 So. 3d 712, 727 (Fla. 2012) (“[S]tatutes also constitute 'clearly established law,' meaning that a district court can use second-tier certiorari to correct a circuit court decision that departed from the essential requirements of statutory law.”); 14269 BT LLC v. Vill. of Wellington, 240 So. 3d 1, 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (“The circuit court's failure to obey the plain language of a statute can form the basis for second-tier review.”).
PETITION GRANTED.
WALLIS, J.
COHEN and TRAVER, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Case No. 5D19-2799
Decided: May 15, 2020
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)