Florida Statute 641.52 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXVII
INSURANCE

Chapter 641
HEALTH CARE SERVICE PROGRAMS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 641.52

641.52 Revocation of certificate; suspension of new enrollment; suspension of the health care provider certificate; administrative fine; notice of action to the office; penalty for use of unlicensed providers.—

(1) The agency may suspend the authority of an organization to enroll new subscribers or revoke the health care provider certificate of any organization, or order compliance within a time certain, if it finds that any of the following conditions exist:

(a) The organization is in substantial violation of its contracts.

(b) The organization is unable to fulfill its obligations under outstanding contracts entered into with its subscribers.

(c) The organization knowingly utilizes a provider who is furnishing or has furnished health care services and who does not have a subsisting license or other authority to practice or furnish health care services in this state.

(d) The organization no longer meets the requirements for the certificate as originally issued.

(e) The organization has violated any lawful rule or order of the agency or any provision of this part.

(f) The organization has refused to be examined or to produce its accounts, records, and files for examination or to perform any other legal obligation as to such examination, when required by the agency.

(g) The organization has not, after given reasonable notice, maintained accreditation or received favorable external quality assurance reviews under s. 641.512 or, following an investigation under s. 641.515, has been determined to not materially meet requirements under this part.

(2) Revocation of an organization’s certificate shall be for a period of 2 years. After 2 years, the organization may apply for a new certificate by compliance with all application requirements applicable to first-time applicants.

(3) Suspension of an organization’s authority to enroll new subscribers shall be for such period, not to exceed 1 year, as is fixed by the agency. The agency shall, in its order suspending the authority of an organization to enroll new subscribers, specify the period during which the suspension is to be in effect and the conditions, if any, which must be met by the organization prior to reinstatement of its authority to enroll new subscribers. The order of suspension is subject to rescission or modification by further order of the agency prior to the expiration of the suspension period. Authority to enroll new subscribers shall not be reinstated unless requested by the organization; however, the agency may not grant reinstatement if it finds that the circumstances for which the suspension of authority to enroll new subscribers occurred still exist or are likely to recur.

(4) The agency may suspend the health care provider certificate issued to an organization. The agency shall, in its order suspending the health care provider certificate, specify the period during which the suspension is to be in effect and the conditions, if any, which must be met by the organization for reinstatement. Upon expiration of the suspension period, the organization’s certificate automatically reinstates unless the agency finds that the causes of the suspension have not been removed or that the organization is otherwise not in compliance with this part. If the agency makes such a finding, the health care provider certificate shall not be reinstated and is considered to have expired as of the end of the suspension period.

(5) If the agency finds that one or more grounds exist for the revocation or suspension of a certificate issued under this part, the agency may, in lieu of such revocation or suspension, impose a fine upon the organization. With respect to any nonwillful violation, the fine may not exceed $2,500 per violation. Such fines may not exceed an aggregate amount of $25,000 for all nonwillful violations arising out of the same action. With respect to any knowing and willful violation of a lawful order or rule of the agency or a provision of this part, the agency may impose a fine upon the organization in an amount not to exceed $20,000 for each such violation. Such fines may not exceed an aggregate amount of $250,000 for all knowing and willful violations arising out of the same action. The agency shall, by January 1, 1997, adopt by rule penalty categories that specify varying ranges of fines for willful violations and for nonwillful violations.

(6) The agency shall immediately notify the office whenever it issues an administrative complaint or an order or otherwise initiates legal proceedings resulting in or which may result in suspension or revocation of an organization’s health care provider certificate or suspension of new enrollment.

(7) Any organization that knowingly utilizes the services of a provider who is not licensed or otherwise authorized by law to provide such services is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

History.—ss. 21, 27, ch. 87-236; ss. 187, 188, ch. 91-108; ss. 89, 91, ch. 91-282; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 35, ch. 96-199; s. 1630, ch. 2003-261.

F.S. 641.52 on Google Scholar

F.S. 641.52 on Casetext

Amendments to 641.52

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 641.52

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S641.52 7 - HEALTH-SAFETY - HEALTH CARE SVC USE UNLIC UNAUTH PROVIDER - F: T

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 641.52

Total Results: 11

Ruth D. Ledoux-Nottingham v. Jennifer Joy Downs, etc.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-02-16

Citation: 210 So. 3d 1217, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 195, 2017 WL 633767, 2017 Fla. LEXIS 336

Snippet: Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 237, 28 S.Ct. 641, 52 L.Ed. 1039 (1908) (holding that judgment of Missouri

Westside EKG Associates v. Foundation Health

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2005-05-04

Citation: 932 So. 2d 214, 2005 WL 1026183

Snippet: or sanctions under the Act, sections 641.25 and 641.52; or, the agency may reject all or part of the panel's

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 2001-09-28

Snippet: the final order as authorized under subsection 641.52(1)(e), Florida Statutes."13 Thus, AHCA selects

Boardwalk Regency Corp. v. Hornstein

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1997-06-11

Citation: 695 So. 2d 471, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6242, 1997 WL 309982

Snippet: See Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 28 S.Ct. 641, 52 *472 L.Ed. 1039 (1908); M & R Invs. Co. v. Hacker

DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB. SERV. v. Holland

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1992-07-10

Citation: 602 So. 2d 652, 1992 WL 158125

Snippet: Holland was ordered to pay $10 per week on his $1,641.52 total of the then unpaid support obligations. But

M & R INVESTMENTS, CO. INC. v. Hacker

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1987-09-03

Citation: 511 So. 2d 1099, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2123, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10116

Snippet: Court in Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 28 S.Ct. 641, 52 L.Ed. 1039 (1908), where the court held that the

Boca-Med Associates, Ltd. v. Glassman

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1985-03-06

Citation: 464 So. 2d 646, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 584, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12773

Snippet: Glassman $23,838.90 together with interest of $6,641.52. We reverse the final judgment as not supported

A.J. Spagnol Lumber Co. v. Trauger

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1982-12-01

Citation: 423 So. 2d 956, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22189

Snippet: based. Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 28 S.Ct. 641, 52 L.Ed. 1039; Roche v. McDonald, 275 U.S. 449, 48

Donner v. Donner

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1974-09-24

Citation: 302 So. 2d 452

Snippet: also Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 28 S.Ct. 641, 52 L.Ed. 1039 (1908); Kenney v. Loyal Order of Moose

Burnett v. Greene

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1931-06-17

Citation: 105 Fla. 35, 144 So. 205

Snippet: 176 Fed. Rep. 942; Beasley v. Ridout, 94 Md. 641, 52 Atl. Rep. 61; Boston v. Chelsea, 212 Mass. 127

Burnett, Tax Collector v. Greene

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1931-06-17

Citation: 144 So. 205, 105 Fla. 36, 1931 Fla. LEXIS 1218

Snippet: 176 Fed. Rep. 942; Beasley v. Ridout, 94 Md. 641, 52 Atl. Rep. 61; Boston v. Chelsea, 212 Mass. 127