8. What was the ruling in the Florida case?

On July 12, 2002 the state of Florida court of appeals announced its decision in Central states, Southeast and Southwest, against the Florida society of pathologists, The Florida court of appeals reversed the ninth circuit courts February 2001 grand of an injunction panning Central states and southeast and southwest area health and welfare fund(Central states) from advising patients that bills they receive from pathologists for professional components of clinical pathology services are," fraudulent" and should not be paid. The court's ruling against pathologist was based primarily upon the appeal court decision which positioned itself against pathologists.

The appeals wrote that the record from the trial court case did not show an existing or prospective legal right on the part of pathologist. The court examined admission forms from patients prior to being admitted to the hospital and explained that," some of the small print in these forms mentioned that the patients may receive bills from pathologists, anesthesiologists and other professionals but we the appeals see nothing in these forms that obligates a patient to pay a pathologist or anesthesiologist in the absence of a professional relationship with the pathologist or anesthesiologist. We see no mention of a professional component and no mention of the nature of any bills the patient may receive from the pathologist. Certainly we see nothing obligating a patient to pay for what might be characterized as the pathologists overhead/or pro rata share of "hands on" pathology services performed for another patient."

The Florida appeals court did not specifically address the findings in prior cases, especially Central states and the Tazwell case respectively. Both cases found that the patients have an implicit contractual obligation to pay for professional components of clinical pathology services. Apparently the Florida Court of Appeals wanted to find a reason to rule against the pathologists. They found that the clinical pathology services were not medically necessary, fraudulent or duplicate services. Therefore the appeals court instead relied upon a lack of a contractual relationship.

9. Is the Florida case binding to all pathologists?

It is important to note that the court's decision in Central states is only binding in the fifth District of Florida and with respect to specific circumstances involved in the case. It is not binding in other jurisdictions. In fact, in states such as Arkansas and Illinois there is existing legal precedent that firmly establishes the right of pathologists to bill for their respective clinical pathology services. For pathologists in other areas of Florida and in remaining states where there are no specific guidelines from the courts, this case offers guidance for pathologists to strengthen their legal position on professional component billing.