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:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

De la Cruz v Able Body Temporary Staffing

This March 6, 2012 1DCA opinion affirmed in part and reversed in part the JCC decision of Judge Sojourner. In this case, the claimant filed several petitions for benefits after injuring his right knee and left wrist in a workplace fall.  Among other things, Claimant sought authorization for a total knee replacement and TPD benefits related to the wrist injury that the Employer/Carrier had accepted as compensable.  The 1DCA held that the  JCC correctly held that the workplace accident was not the major contributing cause of Claimant’s need for knee surgery, and therefore, denied all related claims. The 1DCA affirmed that portion of the order. However, the 1DCA opined that the JCC did not rule on the TPD claim for the claimant's compensable wrist injury.  The 1DCA held that "Failure to rule on a fully tried issue is reversible error". To support their position, the 1 DCA cited the 1997 Betancourt v. Sears Roebuck & Co. Case.  The 1DCA...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is coronavirus compensable under WC?

According to the NCCI, The answer to that question is maybe. While WC laws provide compensation for “occupational diseases” that arise out of and in the course of employment, many state statutes exclude “ordinary diseases of life” (e.g., the common cold or flu). There are occupational groups that arguably would have a higher probability for exposure such as healthcare workers. However, even in those cases, there may be uncertainty as to whether the disease is compensable. Would time away from work during recovery be considered “temporary disability” or is it just normal “sick time”?    https://www.ncci.com/Articles/Pages/Insights-COVID19-WorkersComp.aspx
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