McCarty v. Myers, 125 So. 3d 333

Appeal from a non-final order enjoining OIR from enforcing parts of the 2012 PIP Act.
Trial court held the 2012 PIP Act contravenes constitutional right of access to courts.
Plaintiffs include Provider Plaintiffs and Jane Doe; Jane Doe represents all subject Floridians injured by motor vehicle collisions.
2012 PIP Act amended No-Fault Law: requires treatment within 14 days, sets medical benefits limits, excludes massage therapists and acupuncturists from reimbursement, limits chiropractors' ability to diagnose emergencies.
Trial court granted temporary injunction based on access-to-courts claim, finding standing for Provider Plaintiffs as public-right actors with business interests in PIP reimbursements.
On appeal, the issue is whether the Provider Plaintiffs have standing to pursue an access-to-courts challenge; Court de novo reviews standing; ultimately reverses for lack of standing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge access to courts	Provider Plaintiffs allege violation of their own right of access to courts	OIR argues plaintiffs lack standing to assert others’ access-right claim	No standing; reversed on access-to-courts claim

Hillsborough Inv. Co. v. Wilcox, 152 Fla. 889, 13 So.2d 448 (Fla. 1943) (standing requires actual injury to access to courts)
Alachua County v. Scharps, 855 So.2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (constitutional rights are personal; lack of adverse effect defeats standing)
Sancho v. Smith, 830 So.2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (public-right claims require actual adverse effect; plaintiffs lack standing)
Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Smith, 497 So.2d 644 (Fla. 1986) (economic interest does not confer standing to challenge discriminatory law)
Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Estate of Shelley, 827 So.2d 936 (Fla. 2002) (general rule: litigant must assert own rights; third-party standing absent)
Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1991) (third-party standing principle cited)