The 2023 Florida Statutes
United Auto contends that Lopez's physiotherapy treatments were unlawful because the prescription for the treatment failed to comply with standards for medical records in accordance with section 460.413(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B2-17.0065. Section 460.413 is entitled "Grounds for disciplinary action; action by board or department." It provides that a chiropractor is subject to disciplinary action for various reasons including failure to maintain records to certain standards. It reads:
State Farm alleges that such services were unlawfully rendered, therefore relieving both the patients and State Farm of responsibility for the costs of these services under Florida Statute Section 627.736(5)(b)(1)(b), based on Defendants' alleged violations of the Patient Brokering Act (Fla.Stat. § 817.505 ), the Patient Self–Referral Act (Fla.Stat. § 456.053 ), the Anti–Kickback Statute (Fla.Stat. § 456.054 ), the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. ) (“FDUTPA”), the laws concerning grounds for disciplinary action against chiropractors related to advertising and solicitation (Fla.Stat. § 460.413(d), (f), and (l ) ), and administrative rules prohibiting the same (Fla. Admin. C. R. 64B2–15.001(2)(a), (b), and (k)). State Farm's complaint asserts five counts: (I) common law fraud/fraudulent misrepresentation against all Defendants; (II) unjust enrichment against all Defendants; (III) violation of the FDUTPA against all Defendants; (IV) violation of the Patient Self–Referral Act against Physicians Group and Kompothecras; and (V) declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2201.
44. The Department has established by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Christian failed to record or maintain daily treatment notes that justified the totality of the care provided to M.M. On May 30, 2006, and June 20, 2006, the daily treatment notes do not show any subjective findings or objective findings that would justify the treatment provided. There were no notes indicating why treatment was provided in the areas in which the treatment was given. Dr. Christian left the determination of the areas of treatment to his assistant, but the records do not include the justification for the treatment areas that were chosen. The Department has established by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Christian violated sections 460.413(1)(m) and 460.413(1)(ff) by violating rule 64B2–17.0065(3), which requires that daily records justify the treatment that is provided.
DOH filed an administrative complaint to the Board against appellant charging him with (1) failing to keep legible chiropractic medical records in violation of multiple subsections of section 460.413(1), Florida Statutes (2007), and rule 64B2–17.0065, Florida Administrative Code; and (2) failing to provide patient records in violation of sections 460.413(1) and 456.057(6), Florida Statutes (2007), and rule 64B7–17.0055(1), Florida Administrative Code. Both violations related to appellant's treatment of a patient in 2007.
There is no basis in the evidence or law to support the determinations below that the appellant, a chiropractor, violated § 460.413(1)(d), Fla. Stat. See Rosenberg v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs, 488 So.2d 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Sherman v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 452 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (Anstead, C.J., concurring specially); see also Pub. Health Trust of Dade Co. v. Lopez, 531 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1988); Hotel Rest. Comm'n v. Sunny Seas No. One, Inc., 104 So.2d 570 (Fla. 1958). Accordingly, the order imposing discipline upon appellant is reversed for dismissal of the proceeding below.
Ali argues that these facts support an inference that the City's second medical request was merely a pretext for discriminating against him solely on the basis of his handicap. Ali asserts that he did, in fact, comply with the CBA by submitting the report of a chiropractor, who is "in every way considered a member of the medical profession." Plaintiff's Response In Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment at 5. As authority for the notion that a chiropractor is "competent medical authority" under the CBA, Ali points to Fla. Stat. §§ 460.413, 766.102, 766.101(1)(b) (1993) and Catron v. Roger Bohn, D.C., P.A., 580 So.2d 814 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
An act relating to medical practice; repealing s. 458.331(1)(gg), F.S., relating to grounds for disciplinary action with respect to a health care provider who makes certain referrals; repealing s. 459.015(1)(k), F.S., relating to disciplinary grounds for osteopaths; repealing s. 460.413( 1)(k), F.S., relating to disciplinary grounds for chiropractors; repealing s. 461.013(1)(j), F.S., relating to disciplinary grounds for podiatrists; repealing s. 463.016(1)(m), F.S., relating to disciplinary grounds for optometrists; repealing s. 466.028(1)(n), F.S., relating to disciplinary grounds for dentists; creating the "Patient Self-Referral Act of 1992"; providing legislative intent; providing definitions; prohibiting certain financial arrangements between referring health care providers and providers of health care services; providing for grounds for disciplinary action; providing penalties; providing an exception for specified radiation therapy facilities; providing for repeal; prohibiting kickbacks; prohibiting markups on charges for services rendered by another entity; requiring licensure of health care services; creating s. 407.60, F.S.; directing the Health Care Cost…
PMA argues that the trial court erred in applying New York law since the contract provides that any disputes arising from the contract are to be resolved by Florida law. Generally, when the parties to a contract have agreed upon the law which will govern their disputes, that law will be applied. Department of Motor Vehicles v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., Inc., 408 So.2d 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). The only exception is if the performance of the contracts will cause the chiropractors to violate the laws or regulations governing their profession in the state where they practice. See Thomas v. Ratiner, 462 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), review denied, 472 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1985). This court has determined that the contract does not violate Florida law. See Practice Management Assocs. v. Gulley, 618 So.2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (agreement does not violate prohibition in subsections 460.413( l), (k), (m), Florida Statutes (1985), against fee-splitting for the referral of patients). Thus, the next step is to determine whether the contracts require prohibited fee-splitting under New York law.
. . . Christian violated sections 460.413(l)(m) and 460.413(l)(ff) and rule 64B2-17.0065(3). . . . Christian violated section 460.413(l)(m), Florida Statutes (2005), and/or rule 64B2-17.0065 of the Florida . . . Section 460.413(l)(m) states that a chiropractor may be disciplined for /'flailing to keep legibly written . . . Christian . violated sections 460.413(l)(m) and 460.413(l)(ff) by violating rule 64B2-17.0065(3), which . . . Although section 460.413(l)(m) requires that a chiropractor keep medical records that justify the course . . .
. . . failing to keep legible chiropractic medical records in violation of multiple subsections of section 460.413 . . . 17.0065, Florida Administrative Code; and (2) failing to provide patient records in violation of sections 460.413 . . .
. . . evidence or law to support the determinations below that the appellant, a chiropractor, violated § 460.413 . . .
. . . referrals; repealing s. 459.015(l)(k), F.S., relating to disciplinary grounds for osteopaths; repealing s. 460.413 . . .
. . . Gulley, 618 So.2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (agreement does not violate prohibition in subsections 460.413 . . .
. . . The operative statute in Florida governing chiropractors is section 460.413, Florida Statutes (1985). . . . agent, unless solicitation falls into a category of solicitations approved by the rule of the board. § 460.413 . . . Section 460.413(l)(k), Florida Statutes (1985) was amended in 1986 by chapter 86-285, section 13, Laws . . .
. . . Section 460.413(2), Florida Statutes (1989), authorizes one or more of the following penalties for deceptive . . .
. . . With regard to each count, the amended complaint alleged appellant “violated section 460.413(l)(s), Florida . . . Section 460.413(1) provides, in pertinent part: (1) The following acts shall constitute grounds for which . . .
. . . The appellants were found guilty of violating Section 460.413(l)(d), (e), (w), Florida Statutes (1981 . . . being fraudulent, false or misleading, there was no factual basis for finding a violation of Section 460.413 . . . Reversed. .Section 460.413(l)(d), (e), (w), Florida Statutes (1981), reads as follows: "460.413 Grounds . . .
. . . scope of generally accepted examination or treatment of a patient in violation of Sections 460.412 and 460.413 . . . would constitute a violation of Section 460.-413(l)(w) and justify disciplinary action under Section 460.413 . . . The facts as found by the hearing officer clearly constituted a violation of Sections 460.412 and 460.413 . . .