Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // NICA, Chavez, and the Right to a Jury Trial — Florida Courts Reaffirm Boundaries of Administrative Jurisdiction

Florida’s Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Act (NICA) was designed to provide an exclusive, no-fault remedy for families of infants who suffer catastrophic birth injuries. But what happens when a family does not want NICA benefits and instead wishes to pursue a traditional medical malpractice claim in circuit court? Can defendants force a NICA determination through an administrative proceeding at DOAH (Division of Administrative Hearings)? The First District Court of Appeal’s decision in Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, Inc. v. Chavez, Case No. 1D2020-3605 (Fla. 1st DCA Dec. 11, 2024), definitively answers these questions. (On February 11, 2025, Shands filed motions for rehearing, rehearing en banc, certification of conflict, certification of a question of great public importance, and/or clarification in regards to the First DCA’s December 11, 2024 Order. Oral arguments were held on said motions on June 13, 2025. As of the posting of this blog, the First DCA has not yet ruled upon the pending motions.)

NICA’s Exclusive Remedy: In Derogation of the Right to Trial by Jury

NICA’s exclusive remedy provisions inherently curtail common law tort rights and the constitutional right to trial by jury. As such, Florida courts have long required strict adherence to procedural safeguards when NICA is invoked. Courts are particularly vigilant to ensure that statutes which abrogate fundamental rights, like access to the courts, are interpreted in favor of preserving remedies. The Florida Supreme Court articulated this principle clearly in Kukral v. Mekras, 679 So.2d 278 (Fla. 1996) and Kluger v. White, 281 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), holding that where a right of access to courts exists, the Legislature may not abolish that right without providing a reasonable alternative remedy.

DOAH Has No Jurisdiction Without a Valid NICA Claim

In Chavez, the First DCA held that DOAH’s jurisdiction under NICA exists only when a “claimant”—the parent or legal representative of the child—files a petition affirmatively seeking NICA compensation. Where no such claim exists, DOAH has no authority to decide compensability, and any attempt to force such a proceeding is a legal nullity.

In the Chavez case, the parents originally filed a NICA petition but later amended it to disclaim any entitlement to NICA benefits. Once that disclaimer was filed, the ALJ lost jurisdiction. The First DCA was unequivocal: “Once the Chavezes filed their amended petition disclaiming any entitlement to compensation, they in essence withdrew their assertion of a public right, and the ALJ lost authority to proceed further.”

This holding is consistent with long-standing Florida precedent. In Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass’n v. McKaughan, 668 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1996), the Florida Supreme Court observed that the statutory language of Section 766.304, Florida Statutes, “clearly limits the jurisdiction of the hearing officer to determining the nature of an infant’s injury only when a claim for benefits under section 766.305(1) is filed alleging that the infant has suffered a NICA injury.” The Chavez court emphasized that the 1998 amendments to the NICA statutes, which granted ALJs “exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a claim filed under this act is compensable,” did not abrogate McKaughan’s core holding. These amendments, found in Sections 766.301(1)(d) and 766.304, Florida Statutes, consistently speak in terms of a “claim filed under this act” and a “claimant” seeking compensation. As Chavez clarifies, these provisions do not grant ALJs broader authority to make determinations outside the context of a live claim for compensation under the Plan.

Trial Courts Retain Jurisdiction Over NICA Threshold Issues

The Chavez decision further reaffirms another key ruling in McKaughan v. Kenney, 668 So.2d 974 (Fla. 1996), that trial courts, not administrative agencies, retain the authority to decide whether NICA applies when the issue is raised as a defense in a civil lawsuit. The First DCA in Chavez explained that determining whether a child’s injury qualifies under NICA is a jurisdictional fact that can only be conclusively resolved by a circuit court exercising judicial power.

The Florida Supreme Court, in Mandico v. Taos Construction, Inc., 605 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1992), and English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977), affirmed the broad jurisdiction of circuit courts as “superior courts of general jurisdiction.” Nothing is intended to be outside their jurisdiction “except that which clearly and specially appears so to be.” The determination of whether a civil action is barred by an exclusive administrative remedy is a jurisdictional question that the circuit court has the power to decide for itself.

In short, courts cannot refer a case to DOAH, nor can they stay proceedings, when there is no live NICA claim pending.

Post-Chavez: When is DOAH Jurisdiction Proper?

Chavez delineates four scenarios regarding DOAH jurisdiction:

Conclusion: NICA Cannot Be Imposed on Unwilling Families

The Chavez decision restores clarity to the limits of NICA’s jurisdiction. Families cannot be forced into NICA’s administrative scheme against their will. Providers may raise NICA as a defense in a civil lawsuit, but it is the trial court—not DOAH—that has the authority to resolve that defense when no valid NICA claim exists. Defendants who fail to comply with NICA’s procedural prerequisites—timely notice and written acknowledgment—cannot invoke its protections. And unless a child’s injuries meet NICA’s strict standards for compensability, the family’s right to pursue their case in court remains intact.

*********************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals – the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

While prompt resolution of your legal matter is our goal, our approach is fundamentally different. Our clients are “people” and not “cases” or “files.” We take the time to build a relationship with our clients, realizing that only through meaningful interaction can we best serve their needs. In this manner, we have been able to best help those requiring legal representation.

DISCLAIMER: This information provided by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is for informational purposes only and is intended to be used as a non-legal guide prior to consultation with an attorney familiar with your specific legal situation. It should not be considered legal advice or counseling. No such legal advice or counseling is either expressly or impliedly intended. This information is not a substitute for the advice or counsel of an attorney. If you require legal advice, you should seek the services of an attorney.