More than four decades of complex civil litigation, federal appellate advocacy, and precedent-setting victories before state and federal courts. Available as first-chair trial counsel and trial support to out-of-state, international, and fellow South Florida attorneys. Co-counsel relationships spanning three continents.
“Some cases don’t just resolve disputes. They change the rules for everyone who comes after. For more than four decades, this practice has taken on the complex matters that create new precedents and protect fundamental rights.”
Roberto Villasante · Coral Gables, Florida · Florida Bar No. 437141
A Florida circuit court has denied in full a skin substitute supplier’s motion to dismiss our client’s counterclaim, and has denied the supplier’s request to stay discovery. The counterclaim alleges that the supplier designated a Medicare HCPCS billing code for a product to which that code did not validly apply, and represented the product as reimbursable, inducing a Medicare enrolled provider to purchase the product and to submit claims that Medicare later denied and recouped.
The court held that every count of the counterclaim alleges the elements of the cause of action asserted, that the statutory claim under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act rests on its own elements independent of any contract between the parties, and that whether the designated code was validly assigned to the product is a question of fact that cannot be resolved within the four corners of a pleading. Discovery proceeds in the ordinary course, and we are moving forward to prove the causes of action.
“The issue that matters most to providers is the one at the center of this case. When a supplier tells a provider which code to bill and assures the provider that the product is payable, the denials and recoupments that follow are not the provider’s error alone.”
Behind every precedent is a person who refused to accept “no” for an answer. These cases shaped the law, not just for our clients but for everyone who comes after.
A Venezuelan family lost $861,000 to identity thieves who fraudulently accessed their bank account. The bank claimed they had waited too long to report it, citing a 30-day window buried in the account agreement.
Civil theft claims were filed against a travel agency to pressure a settlement, a tactic that exploits the threat of treble damages and attorney’s fees even when the underlying facts do not support criminal intent.
A question of first impression: whether insurance proceeds retain the constitutional protections afforded to homestead property under Florida law.
Eight foreign families invested their life savings through the federal EB-5 program, trusting in the promise of U.S. residency. They were defrauded by the operators of the investment project.
Healthcare providers treating diabetic ulcers, pressure sores, and chronic wounds with FDA-approved skin substitute grafts face systematic Medicare payment denials that restrict patient access to specialized wound care and threaten provider viability.
Healthcare providers who purchased skin substitute or advanced wound care products from a manufacturer that represented the product as Medicare-reimbursable, only to face systematic payment denials and recoupment demands, may have direct legal claims against that manufacturer. The cause of action does not challenge Medicare’s coverage decision. It targets the manufacturer’s own commercial misrepresentations about billing code validity and reimbursability that induced the purchase.
Florida law has already answered a version of this question in banking. When a family’s account was drained by fraudulent wire transfers, the bank argued the loss belonged to the customer for failing to report it inside a contractual window. In Rodriguez v. Branch Banking & Trust, described above, the Eleventh Circuit held otherwise. Florida had made a policy choice about who bears the risk of a fraudulent transfer, and it chose the bank. A contract could not shift that risk back onto the account holder. What makes that choice sensible, in our view, is that the bank knew its own systems, controlled them, and was positioned to prevent the loss.
The same allocation question is now being asked in Medicare wound care. A supplier selects the product, designates the billing code, instructs the provider how to submit the claim, and assures the provider that the claim is payable. When the denials and the recoupment demands arrive, the entire loss lands on the provider. This practice is developing the argument that the party who supplied the billing instruction, and who held the superior knowledge of the product’s coverage status, should answer for the consequences when that instruction proves wrong.
Complex matters in federal administrative courts, commercial litigation, and appellate practice, handled with experience accumulated over more than four decades at the highest levels of advocacy.
Representing healthcare providers in Medicare appeals involving six- to seven-figure disputed reimbursements. Post-Loper Bright, agencies must provide substantial evidence, not just interpretive deference. Medicare’s template denials routinely fail this standard.
OMHA · MAC · DAB · Federal CourtTrade secret disputes, breach of fiduciary duty, corporate liability, and business tort claims requiring sophisticated legal theories and meticulous discovery management. Every interrogatory and document demand must build toward a unified strategy.
Trade Secrets · Corporate LiabilityEstablished precedent in both state and federal appellate courts, from the 11th Circuit to Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal. Precise legal analysis, compelling brief writing, and the experience to know when to appeal and how to win.
11th Circuit · Florida 3rd DCAA graduate of the University of Florida School of Law, Roberto Villasante has practiced complex civil litigation in Florida for more than four decades. His practice spans the full range of complex civil litigation, from high-stakes commercial trials, many involving international parties, before state and federal courts, through federal administrative appeals, to briefing and argument before appellate tribunals at every level.
Former adjunct professor at FIU’s Legal Studies Institute. Former co-chair of ATLA’s Vaccine Litigation Group. Frequent speaker at Mealey’s Lexis and ACI national conferences.
Over the course of a four-decade practice, Mr. Villasante has developed working relationships with counsel across three continents, collaborating with trial attorneys in South Korea, Spain, Portugal, and throughout Latin America on matters requiring coordination between U.S. and international proceedings. He is available as first-chair or support counsel to international clients and foreign law firms requiring experienced U.S. trial and appellate representation.
Court Memberships