Skip to main content

Rosa v Progressive Employer Services

An April 12, 2012 1DCA decision reversing Judge Murphy.

The 1DCA reversed the JCC's decision finding that the JCC erred:
1 In making a finding on the Claimant’s PIR;
2 That the Claimant had reached maximum medical improvement; and
3 In denying the Claimant’s claim for temporary indemnity benefits.

PIR
The issue of the Claimant’s PIR was not properly before the JCC. The PIR claim had not been mediated, listed in the Uniform Pretrial Stipulation, or addressed by either party, and was not ripe for adjudication. The 1DCA found that the JCC erred in making a finding on Claimant’s PIR because that issue was beyond the scope of the hearing.

Ruling on an issue that is not properly before the JCC is a violation of a party’s due process rights.

MMI and TEMPORARY BENEFITS
Claimant also argues the JCC erred in finding that Claimant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and further erred in relying upon that erroneous determination to deny the Claimant’s claims for temporary indemnity benefits.

The JCC awarded a C-7 nerve block based on the opinion of the EMA that the nerve block was not ordered as palliative care, but rather as a diagnostic tool to isolate the cause of Claimant’s residual neck and shoulder pain and to help determine the future course of treatment.

The JCC awarded the treatment based on the opinion of the expert medical advisor that the procedure was medically necessary because it could bring about some degree of improvement in the Claimant’s condition. Hence, the JCC’s finding that the Claimant had reached overall MMI was inconsistent with the JCC’s award of the requested treatment. The 1DCA has held that an award of medical care that is remedial in nature is inconsistent with a denial of temporary indemnity benefits for the same time period.

The 1DCA decision does not go into any detail regarding the temporary disability benefits period. It does not detail the claimant's restrictions and employment situation. The 1DCA remanded for further findings concerning Claimant’s entitlement to temporary indemnity benefits.

Click here to see the 1DCA opinion
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Williams v Department of Corrections

This August 31, 2012 1DCA opinion reversed Judge Winn's JCC decision. In this case, the timeline is important. In short, the timeline was:   A PFB for PTD benefits was filed on January 25, 2011. The carrier received the PFB on January 28, 2011. On February 16, 2011, the carrier accepted the claimant as PTD (18 days after receipt of the PFB). The very next day the carrier issued a $2,000 advance that had previously been requested by the claimant. Finally on March 10, the carrier issued a check paying the claimant PTD benefits minus the $2,000 cash advance.(the first installment of PTD benefits was made 41 days after the PFB was received by the carrier.) Claimant's counsel filed for attorney fees asserting as grounds that the carrier initially denied the claim but ultimately accepted the claim. The JCC denied fees concluding that the advance paid was a discharge of liability from the date thereof until such advance is recouped by offset against subsequent benefits
1 comment
Read more

2 Billion overspent on WC prescription drugs

Here is an interesting article on the cost of prescription medications and the extra moneys that workers compensation insurance companies are spending. I've been harping on this same issue for years. There has to tighter control on the medications that are paid for insurance companies. Click here to see the article
Post a Comment
Read more

Hit Products v Sakiba Krivdic

This April 12, 2012 1DCA decision affirmed a JCC decision of Judge Remsnyder. This case shows the relative ease that a claimant can get an initial $2,000 advance. At the JCC level, the claimant was awarded a $2,000 advance because there was competent substantial evidence to support that the Claimant had been unable to return to the same or equivalent employment. The employer/carrier disagreed with the JCC ruling and appealed. The first DCA affirmed the JCC's ruling concerning the advance. The 1DCA held that there was competent substantial evidence to support the JCC’s finding that the Claimant has been unable to return to the same or equivalent employment,and was eligible for an advance of $2,000 under § 440.20(12)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010). FYI Under 440.20(12)(c), there are 3 requisites for an award of an advance of $2,000 or less: 1:  The Claimant has been unable to return to the same or equivalent employment with no substantial reduction in wages;or 2: The claiman
Post a Comment
Read more