OLIVIA REYES

v.

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA, INC., ET AL.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed November⁵, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0273 Lower Tribunal No. 20-CA-745-K ________________

Olivia Reyes, Appellant,

vs.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Timothy J. Koenig, Judge.

Wasson & Associates, Chartered, and Roy D. Wasson; Open Book Appeals and Erin Pogue Newell; Health and Medicine Law Firm, and Maria

T. Santi, for appellant.

Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, P.A., and Christopher J. Stearns and Selena A. Gibson, for appellee Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority.

Before GORDO, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ.

GORDO, J.

2

Olivia Reyes (“Reyes”) appeals from a final summary judgment entered in favor of Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (“FKAA”). We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We affirm.

I.

FKAA is a governmental entity that operates a self-funded health insurance plan and serves as a self-insurer for its employees. Reyes, an FKAA employee, participated in the self-funded plan. In August of 2019, Reyes underwent elective cosmetic procedures, including liposuction and abdominoplasty. FKAA’s health insurance plan excludes coverage for cosmetic surgery and any complications arising from such procedures.¹ Twelve days after the procedure, Reyes developed complications related to the surgery. She was hospitalized for over a month and treated for an infection at the site of the abdominoplasty. Reyes submitted medical bills for payment under her health insurance plan. FKAA denied coverage, determining the expenses were complications of a noncovered service under the plan.

II.

“Our standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo.” Ottey v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 299 So. 3d 500, 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (quoting White v. Ferco Motors Corp., 260 So. 3d 388, 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)). “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Betancourt v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 406 So. 3d 1011, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (quoting Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(a)). “The court shall state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion.” Id. “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations.” Id. (quoting Fla. R. Civ. P.

III.

Reyes argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for FKAA because a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether her hospital treatment resulted from complications of her elective cosmetic surgery. The subject hospital records, however, specifically document that she was treated for a post-operative infection at the incision site resulting from the cosmetic surgery.² Bank of New York Mellon, 347 So. 3d 446, 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“[A]ffidavits opposing summary judgment must identify admissible evidence and not be based on mere supposition or belief[.]” (citing Gonzalez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 273 So. 3d 1031, 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019))); Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Zamanillo, 388 So. 3d 912, 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“If the evidence presented by the nonmovant is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” (quoting

In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192, 193 (Fla. 2020))).

IV.

Reyes further argues she received emergency medical services and that federal law mandates coverage for such services. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act identifies ten “general categories” of mandatory “[e]ssential health benefits,” including “[e]mergency services.” 42 U.S.C. § 18022(b)(1)(B). Self-funded plans maintained by government entities, however, are exempt from this requirement. It is undisputed that FKAA is a governmental entity that operates a self-funded health insurance plan. Because no genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding FKAA’s exemption from covering emergency medical services under federal law, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in its favor. See 42 U.S.C.

3 To the extent Reyes raises new issues regarding FKAA’s compliance with state law, those issues were not presented below. Thus, they are deemed waived and not properly preserved for appellate review. See Van Lent v. Everglades Found., Inc., 400 So. 3d 64, 74–75 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“We begin our analysis with a basic tenet of Florida appellate review that it is improper to raise for the first time on appeal matters which should have been raised to the trial court.”).