appellate court summary

Appellate Court Summary

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .1

Appellate Court Summary .2

References .5

Appellate Court Summary

Health Options , Inc . vs . Palmetto Pathology Services ,

.A , etc

This case is an appeal d at the District Court of Appeal , Third District , State of Florida , initiated by the appellant Health Options after the trial court ed it to pay pathologists in the amount of 1 , 546 , 479 corresponding to the value of their services (AMA , 2008 The award for payment was decided by the court ruling that if the

HMO like what happened to Health Options , has not contracted directly with a hospital based physician provider . the HMO shall pay for medically necessary and approved physician care rendered to a non-Medicare subscriber at a contracted hospital .covered by the HMO subscriber contract (AMA , 2008

On appeal , Health Options argues that they are not bound to pay the pathologists because they were out of network . One of the main arguments in the case is that the services of the pathologists in the clinical laboratory are medical services for patients and should be paid accordingly . Health Options is wrong in saying that it has no obligation to pay the pathologists because in fact , the services rendered by the pathologists are necessary and valuable (Health Options Inc , vs . Palmetto Pathology Services , Case No . 3D07-1453 . If their services are not covered by Medicare subscriptions , the HMO is bound to pay for their services . In this case , Health Options is responsible for their compensation corresponding to the amount of service rendered Convinced of the strong arguments in favor of the pathologists , the amici curiae request for the Court of Appeal to affirm the decision rendered by the lower court

East Coast Electric vs . Allen Dunn , et al

This case is an appeal d by the East Coast Electric after the trial court found them negligent in line of duty that lead to the electrocution of two persons . In its argument , the east Coast believed that they should not be held liable because the opposing party did not exert sufficient effort to stop them . The case against Eat Coast Electric is based upon an argument on negligence resulting damage to another . After the trial court ruled in favor of the complainants , on appeal , the East Coast Electric argues that it should not be held responsible because the complainants did not exert enough effort to stop them . Their acts were in relation to their duties to connect electricity . Hence , the appellant is asking for the reversal of the decision of the trial court in as much as it finds it liable for what happened to the people as a result of their assumption of duty

The School Board of Miami-Dade County vs . Janet Leyva , etc , et al

This case at bar is a petition for certiorari initiated by the school after the trial court dismissed its motion to dismiss charges against it . The petition for certiorari requires of the higher courts , like the Court of Appeal...