Skip to main content

Falcon Farms v Espinoza





This February 23, 2012 1DCA decision affirmed in part and reversed in part Judge Hill's JCC decision.

The issue at the JCC trial was a change in primary care physician. The JCC awarded the change of physician but also denied compensability of the accident.

Both parties appealed. The E/C argued that the Claimant was not entitled to a change of physician because her condition was non-occupational.

The Claimant cross-appealed arguing that the JCC’s finding of noncompensability is legally inconsistent with the  award of a change of physician. 

The 1DCA addressed the cross-appeal first. The 1DCA affirmed the JCC's decision denying compensability of the accident. The 1DCA indicated that the claimant did not show that the JCC erred in ruling the accident not compensable.

"The sole basis of Claimant’s challenge on compensability is that the order is incongruous with the award of a change of physician. Claimant did not present this argument to the JCC – not even on rehearing, once the basis of the JCC’s ruling was clear; therefore, Claimant did not preserve such an error for appellate review".

The 1DCA then addressed the E/C's argument. The 1DCA indicated that since the accident was not compensable, the E/C’s argument on appeal has merit.

The 1DCA utilized section 440.13(2)(f) as the basis for their decision and indicated that the plain language of the statute reads it "requires the injury to be a "work-related injury." The JCC found the Claimant presented no "persuasive medical evidence" that an injury arose out of employment, and Claimant did not challenge that finding.

The 1DCA reversed the JCC decision as it relates to awarding a change of physician.

Click here to see the 1DCA opinions



Labels

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 be...
1 comment
Read more

Perry v Ecolab

This January 13, 2012 1DCA decision overturned Judge Murphy's JCC Decision The 1DCA ruled that section 440.20(7) controls the payment of penalties and requires that a 20% penalty be paid if the compensation is not paid within seven days after the order is signed as opposed to after order becomes final. Click here to see the !DCA opinion
Post a Comment
Read more

Arlotta v city of West Palm Beach

A March 26, 2012 1DCA decision that reversed JCC D'Ambrosio. This case continues to show the importance that the 1DCA is putting on Expert Medical Advisors (EMA). Judges of Compensation Claims have less and less control In a case where there are conflicting medical opinions. In this case, there was a conflicting medical opinion and Judge of Compensation Claims appointed an EMA to address “the issues of 1) whether the Claimant has gynecomastia, 2) the cause of the gynecomastia, and 3) what treatment is recommended.” However, before the claimant was seen by the EMA physician, the claimant had an unauthorized surgery. The claimant wanted to give copies of the unauthorized medical records to the EMA. The Employer/Carrier filed a motion to dismiss the Claimant's claims arguing that Claimant’s unilateral decision to undergo surgery prevented the EMA from answering the questions put to him and that the E/C had been prejudiced in its ability to defend the claims. The JCC fou...
1 comment
Read more