O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 33-20-30 (2019)

Resolution of disputes

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any dispute arising within the purview of this chapter with reference to the regulation and supervision of any health care corporation shall within 30 days after such dispute arises be submitted by the aggrieved person to the Commissioner for his decision with reference thereto, provided nothing in this Code section shall authorize or require the Commissioner to determine the contractual rights between the parties interested in any such corporations. After proper notice and hearing, any decisions and order of the Commissioner made pursuant to this chapter shall be binding on the persons involved unless set aside on review as provided by this Code section.

History

Code 1933, § 56-1728a, enacted by Ga. L. 1976, p. 1461, § 1; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 33.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Exhaustion of remedies required. - Medical group’s suit for a declaratory

judgment as to the group’s rights to participate in a health maintenance organi-

zation under Georgia’s Any Willing Provider Statute, O.C.G.A. § 33-20-16, was procedurally barred by the failure to exhaust administrative remedies by first submitting the group’s dispute to the Georgia Insurance Commissioner pursu-

ant to O.C.G.A. § 33-20-30. Northeast Ga. Cancer Care, LLC v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ga., Inc., 297 Ga. App. 28, 676 S.E.2d 428 (2009), cert. denied, No. S09C1241, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 805 (Ga. 2009).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2009–2012 · leading case: Ne. Georgia Cancer Care v. Blue Cross, 726 S.E.2d 714 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ne. Georgia Cancer Care v. Blue Cross, 726 S.E.2d 714 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 20× “In Northeast I , we did not purport to address the underlying substantive merits of the action; rather, we simply concluded that, pursuant to OCGA § 33-20-30 the administrative exhaustion provision, [15] Northeast was required *723 to exhaust its administrative remedies by…”

Ne. Georgia Cancer Care, LLC v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc., 676 S.E.2d 428 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 10× “3 OCGA § 33-20-30 sets forth the procedure for resolving disputes arising from the alleged violation of statutes regulating insurance health care plans under the Health Care Plan Act, OCGA § 33-20-1 et seq.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.