Title: Nadia Garcon, et al. v. Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC12-2406 
____________ 
 
NADIA GARCON, et al.,  
Petitioners, 
 
vs. 
 
FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 
Respondent. 
 
[November 6, 2014] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
We accepted jurisdiction to review the Third District Court of Appeal’s 
decision in Garcon v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 96 So. 3d 472 (Fla. 
3d DCA 2012), based on express and direct conflict with Smith v. Agency for 
Health Care Administration, 24 So. 3d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), and Roberts v. 
Albertson’s, Inc., 119 So. 3d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), on the issue of whether a 
plaintiff should be afforded the opportunity to demonstrate that a Medicaid lien 
exceeds the amount recovered by the plaintiff for medical expenses.1  See art. V, 
                                          
 
1.  After this Court accepted jurisdiction, the First District Court of Appeal 
decided Harrell v. State, 143 So. 3d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), in which the First 
District agreed with the decisions of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Smith 
 
 
 
- 2 - 
§ 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.  Prior to filing an answer brief in this case, the Respondent 
filed an unopposed motion to remand for further proceedings in light of the United 
States Supreme Court’s decision in Wos v. E.M.A., 133 S. Ct. 1391 (2013), which 
both parties agree is now determinative of this case. 
 
The Respondent concedes that, in light of Wos, the Third District’s decision 
in Garcon is erroneous, and this case should be remanded to the circuit court to 
reconsider its decision.  After a review of the filings and the parties’ arguments, we 
grant the Respondent’s unopposed motion and quash the Third District’s decision.  
We direct that this case be remanded to the Third District to return the case to the 
circuit court for further proceedings consistent with the United States Supreme 
Court’s decision in Wos.   
It is so ordered. 
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
CANADY and POLSTON, JJ., dissent. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED.   
 
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Direct 
Conflict of Decisions 
 
 
Third District - Case No. 3D11-925 
 
 
(Miami-Dade County) 
 
                                                                                                                                        
and the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Roberts, thereby also creating conflict 
with the Third District’s decision in Garcon.  
 
 
 
- 3 - 
Stephen Anthony Taylor of Suarez & Taylor, Attorneys at Law, Miami, Florida, 
and Nichole Johnston Segal and Bard Daniel Rockenbach of Burlington & 
Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, Florida, 
 
for Petitioners 
 
 
James Hamilton Kerr Bruner, Sr. of James H.K. Bruner, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, 
Stuart Fraser Williams, General Counsel, Agency for Health Care Administration, 
Tallahassee, Florida, and Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Allen C. Winsor, 
Solicitor General, and Diane G. DeWolf, Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, 
Florida, 
 
 
for Respondent 
 
Celene Harrell Humphries and Maegen Peek Luka of Brannock & Humphries, 
Tampa, Florida, 
 
 
for Amicus Curiae Florida Justice Association