The 2023 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
A Basic Machine Operator (“BMO”) is defined as “a person who is employed by a licensed practitioner to perform certain radiographic functions ... under the direct supervision of that practitioner.” Fla. Stat. § 468.301(1). The RCPA further restricts a BMO to the performance of “general diagnostic radiographic and general fluoroscopic procedures ... under the direct supervision and control of a licensed practitioner in that practitioner's office.” Fla. Stat. § 468.302(3)(a). Under the RCPA, “direct supervision” requires “the physical presence of the licensed practitioner for consultation and direction of the actions of the” BMO as well as the licensed practitioner's assumption of “legal liability for the services rendered” by the BMO. Fla. Stat. § 468.301(7).
A Basic Machine Operator ("BMO") is defined as "a person who is employed by a licensed practitioner to perform certain radiographic functions . . . under the direct supervision of that practitioner." Fla. Stat. § 468.301(1). The RCPA further restricts a BMO to the performance of "general diagnostic radiographic and general fluoroscopic procedures . . . under the direct supervision and control of a licensed practitioner in that practitioner's office." Fla. Stat. § 468.302(3)(a). Under the RCPA, "direct supervision" requires "the physical presence of the licensed practitioner for consultation and direction of the actions of the" BMO as well as the licensed practitioner's assumption of "legal liability for the services rendered" by the BMO. Fla. Stat. § 468.301(7).
State Farm makes numerous allegations in support of its claim that the services rendered were unlawful and therefore non-compensable. State Farm claims that in 2009 and 2010, Defendant Velasco performed X-rays on patients, including State Farm insureds, without the certification required by the Radiological Personnel Certification Act (“RPCA”), Florida Statute § 468.3001. Id. at ¶¶ 73–76. State Farm asserts that Defendants B & A, Genao, Alonso, and Velasco knew or should have known that Velasco lacked certification from the Department of Health, as required under the RPCA. Id. at ¶ 83. Additionally, State Farm claims that Defendant B & A's employment of Defendant Maza, who held a certification from the State of Florida as a Basic Machine Operator (“BMO”), was in violation of Florida law regulating the use of BMO's, as it was a clinic owned by a layperson, and not the office of a licensed practitioner. See id. at ¶ 87; see also Fla. Stat. §§ 468.301(1) and 468.302(3)(a). State Farm also contends that B & A and its Medical Directors failed to make a good faith effort to collect deductibles and/or copays, in violation of Florida law. Id. at ¶¶ 61–70.
. . . . §§ 468.301(3), (6). . . . Stat. § 468.301(1). . . . Stat. § 468.301(7). B. . . .
. . . . §§ 468.301(1) and 468.302(3)(a). . . .