Broward FL Lawyers | Julie M Carlson -- eLawyers

94-003224RP EXECUTIVE RISK CONSULTANTS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY (1994)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 10, 1994

Whether the Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Safety's, proposed adoption of Rule Chapter 38I-17, Florida Administrative Code, notice of which was published on pages 3569 through 3576 of the May 20, 1994, edition of Florida Administrative Weekly, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for the reasons asserted by Petitioners?Challenge to prop rules on gd rules do not carry out statutory mandate that Div of Sfty approve employer's wplac safety program rejected.

91-003393 THE PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF DADE COUNTY, D/B/A JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL vs DIVISION OF STATE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE (1991)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 30, 1991

At issue in this proceeding is whether the son of Floyd Goins, an enrollee of the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan, is an eligible dependent under the provisions of such plan, and therefore eligible for insurance benefits.State employee's child who was over the age of 19 was not eligible child under state insurance plan until actually enrolled in college.

92-003031 ROBERT E. JAGGER vs DIVISION OF STATE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE (1992)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 19, 1992

Whether Petitioner is entitled to make additional payments to his Medical Reimbursement Account.Employee's error during option election proved to be mistake. Should be changed even if inconvenient for agency. Program's purpose to benefit him.

91-005643 ROBERTA RUBIN vs DIVISION OF STATE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE (1991)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 03, 1991

The basic issue in this case concerns the scope of the coverage provided by the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan ("State Plan"). The Petitioner incurred extensive expenses for medical treatment, some of which have been paid by the State Plan. The Petitioner contends that under the State Plan, specifically under the "extended coverage" portion of the State Plan, she is entitled to more than has already been paid. The Respondent contends that the correct amount has already been paid.Ambiguities in Benefit Document and conflicts between Benefit Document and Insurance Plan Brochure must be resolved in favor of the individual insured.

92-000337BID RESTAT vs DIVISION OF STATE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE (1992)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 15, 1992

Whether or not Petitioner Restat's response to the Respondent Department of Administration's Invitation to Bid (ITB) 92-08 was responsive and is the lowest and best response.Part of bid petition struck where it constituted untimely challenge to specs and not to award with result of no disputed material facts and dismissal.

91-005324 ROBERT R. WILLS vs DIVISION OF STATE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE (1991)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 22, 1991

On April 2, 1991, the Division of State Employees' Insurance denied Mr.State employees self insurance plan benefit document does not exclude treatment for contact granuloma for vocal chord under exclusion for speech therapy

91-002879 LORETTA SAFF vs DIVISION OF STATE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE (1991)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 09, 1991

The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Administration, Division of State Employees' Insurance, administrator of the State of Florida group health insurance policy, should pay all covered medical expenses incurred by the Petitioners for non-PPC providers on behalf of their dependent daughter that exceed $3,000 1/ maximum out-of-pocket expense stop loss provision of the policy, despite the part of the stop loss provision that subjects it to maximum payments for room and board (and some other services) supplied by non-PPC providers.DOA not equitable estopped to deny health insurance coverage. No evidence of specific representation of material fact. No promisory estoppel

Julie M Carlson