Skip to main content

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

Coming and going rule

Coming and going rule Workers’ traveling to and from work are not covered under WC. Coming and going rules ends when the employee enters or leaves the employer’s premises.  Pertinent  Coming and going exceptions: Premises exception -  What are the employer’s premises: Does Home depot  own or control the parking lot?? Special hazards exception – a special hazard on a normal route used by an employee to enter and exit from the place of work can under certain circumstances become a hazard of employment  Case law Doctor's Business Service, Inc. v. Clark, 498 So.2d 659, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2444 (Fla. App. 1 Dist., 1986)  Barbara S. Clark, who was injured on a public sidewalk while proceeding from the employer-owned parking lot to the entrance of her employer's office building, suffered a compensable accident under the Florida Workers' Compensation Act. We therefore  affirm. In that case, the claimant parked in the  employer-owned ...
Post a Comment
Read more