Contact Us

Use the form on the right to contact us.

You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right. 

(727) 490-9104

Andrew Marcus and Michael Manning offer individuals and businesses attorney services throughout Florida. The two specialize in insurance, health care, regulatory, government/administrative, criminal, and family law.

24186_10100359263978921_3618580_n.jpg

Articles

The attorneys of Marcus & Manning, P.A. strive to be the most knowledgeable attorneys regarding new legal developments.

Mid-May Crim Law Update

Marcus & Manning, P.A.

The Florida Legislature has been a little busy as of late with passing of 234 bills. Only a handful have been signed into law so far by Governor Rick Scott. More is expected to be signed later. For now, this is Marcus and Manning's mid-month update on the few bills that have been passed regarding crim law: 

  • Police with body cameras can view their footage before making their police report. 

  • Death Penalty is back again in Florida now requiring a jury to vote unanimously for death. 

  • First time DUI offenders will not be required by law to have an ignition lock on their car. 

Not limited to just law passed by the legislature, there has been some criminal case law updates as well. Here are some of the highlights: 

  • More death penalty cases coming back for a new penalty phase requiring unanimous vote for death (know someone in Florida who has received a death sentence? Call us now) 

  • "All individuals subject to Baker Act hearings, have a right to have a judicial officer physically present at their Baker Act commitment hearing, subject only to their consent to the contrary." Doe v. State, May 11, 2017, SC16-1852   

  • Juror can be struck for cause if they believe an officer is more credible than another witness just because of his/her occupation. Rodriguez v. State, May 10, 2017, 2D15-2961  

Think any of these changes will affect the rights of you or a loved one? Call us today. 

What It Means for You & Your Company: House Passes Healthcare Bill.

Marcus & Manning, P.A.

With a 217 to 213 vote, the U.S. House of Representatives Republicans passed their version of the healthcare bill. This new bill would repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. “Obamacare.” If passed in the Senate, then expect changes beforehand. Here are a few highlights of the bill as it now stands:

No Tax Penalties: Exactly what it says, no tax penalties for those who do not obtain insurance. Essentially, this is similar to pre-Obamacare in that no person must obtain insurance and face a penalty.

Pre-existing conditions: States will have the ability waive the current requirement that insurers having to charge the same amount regardless of a pre-existing condition. It means that insurers can charge more for people with pre-existing conditions.

Medicaid: Obamacare would have expanded Medicaid to people just above the poverty line. The new bill will essentially stop the expansion by reducing the federal reimbursement to states whose people leave Medicaid.

In all, this will affect the way insurance companies do business in each state. Costs and coverage will certainly change for example. More will happen as the bill will be modified in the Senate, but we suggest you plan for the future. Let our expertise and experience help you and your company with that plan. Call us today 727-490-9104

 

 

 

 

 

HHS Publishes 2018 Medicare Advantage and Part D Rate Announcement and Call Letter, Includes Updates on Star Ratings

Andrew Marcus

2018 Medicare Advantage and Part D Rate Announcement and Call Letter, and Request for Information, Includes information on Net Payment Impact, Using Encounter Data, Star Ratings Enhancements, Service Category Cost-Sharing Requirements , Improving Drug Utilization Review Controls, 

Read More

Supreme Court resolves conflict between First and Third DCA on Fourth Amendment issue

Michael Manning

The Supreme Court of Florida has resolved a conflict between the First and Third District Courts of Appeal in Florida, finding that officers cannot enter a person’s home for a non-violent misdemeanor crime where the evidence of the crime is outside of the home.  Prior to this case, the Third District Court had ruled that officers could enter a person’s home if they were in “hot pursuit” of someone committing any offense that was punishable by jail.  Conversely, in this case, the First District Court ruled that officers following a person into a home for a non-violent misdemeanor were violating that person’s Fourth Amendment Rights to privacy, and the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed that decision.

In this case, an officer witnessed the defendant standing outside of a home smoking what the officer believed to be a cigarette containing marijuana.  Upon the officer’s approach, the defendant threw the cigarette to the ground and retreated to the home.  The officers, rather than collecting the cigarette, chose to follow the defendant into the home where they effectuated an arrest.  During the arrest, a firearm was found in the defendant’s waistband.

Subsequently, the officers searched outside and found a cigarette which did contain marijuana.  Based on the foregoing, the defendant was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of marijuana less than twenty (20) grams, and resisting an officer without violence.  The defense filed a motion to suppress the evidence based on a violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment Rights from when the officers followed him into his home without a warrant.  The trial court, following the Third District Court of Appeals, denied the motion, finding that the officers were justified in entering the home because they were in “hot pursuit” of the defendant for possession of marijuana, which is an offense punishable by jail.

The case was appealed and heard by the First District Court of Appeals which reversed the trial court’s ruling, finding that the defendant’s Fourth Amendment Rights were violated once officers entered the home without a warrant, and “hot pursuit” was not a valid exception to the need for a warrant.

The case was again appealed and heard by the Supreme Court of Florida.  During its review of the case, the Court struck down the notion that a person can be followed into the home based on “hot pursuit” for any jailable offense, disapproving cases previously decided by the Third District Court of Appeals.

The Court noted that careful attention must be paid to the sanctity of one’s home, and that there was no need to enter the home for such a minor offense with no risk of imminent destruction of evidence.  In fact, the Court pointed out, that the evidence in this case could have been seized with no intrusion into the home, because the cigarette was outside.  The Court opined that allowing officers to enter a person’s home for any jailable offense could lead to absurd results such as officers entering homes for jaywalking and littering, which are jailable offenses in certain Florida jurisdictions. 

Ultimately, the Court resolved the conflict in favor of the protection of a person’s Fourth Amendment Rights, and it approved the First District Court’s decision to reverse the defendant’s conviction.

New 11th Circuit Opinion Should Remind Life and Health Insurers to Conduct Due Diligence Upon Application for a Policy

Andrew Marcus

Federal Court and Florida Supreme Court agree that STOLI policies are incontestable after two-years.

Read More

The Florida AHCA Provides Update on Implementation of the Healthcare Transparency Bill

Andrew Marcus

Expect the new law to provide ammunition in medical billing dispute litigation

Read More