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

CESPEDES V YELLOW TRANSPORTATION

This April 24, 2013 1DCA opinion affirmed in part and reversed in part Judge Portuallo's JCC decision. in this case, the claimant argued that the JCC erred by: (1) improperly shifting onto Claimant the burden to prove  the compensable injury was the major contributing cause (MCC) of his disability and need for surgery;  (2) finding  that the medical services at issue did not constitute “emergency care or services,” and that lack of notice to the  Employer/Carrier (E/C)  precluded authorization or payment; and  (3) finding  the opinion testimony from the emergency room physician, Dr. Acebal, is not admissible  pursuant to the “self-help” provisions contained in chapter 440.  The 1DCA reversed on the first two grounds raised and affirmed on the last. As background, the Claimant injured his lower back in 2006.  the Claimant declined surgical treatment, and ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Miami Dade County School Board v Russ

This May 29, 2012 1DCA decision reverses Judge Hill's JCC decision. The claimant filed a PFB and the JCC determined that the “initial response” was the November 9 documents prepared by the EC (notice of appearance, request for production, letter of representation, notice of deposition, and letter to the mediator) the JCC concluded that because the E/C did not assert an SOL defense, the E/C had waived that defense. The E/C argued that its initial response to the Petition for Benefits was filed on November 10, 2009. Based on the case of Certain v. Big Johnson Concrete Pumping, Inc., 34 So. 3d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), the 1DCA ruled that that the “initial response” has to explicitly state a position either denying or conceding the particular claims therein.
Post a Comment
Read more

QUIROGA v FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH

This January 16, 2013 1DCA opinion affirmed Judge Pecko's JCC ruling. In this case, the claimant Claimant challenged an order of theJCC that accepts the opinion of one medical doctor over another and thereby denied benefits. The claimant did not request an EMA.  The claimant's argument was that the JCC committed fundamental error by not appointing, sua sponte, an EMA to resolve the disagreement in medical opinions. The Claimant also  argued that the JCC has no “jurisdiction” to resolve medical disagreements unless an EMA is first appointed.  The 1DCA wrote that "Without equivocation, this court has held that a JCC’s failure to order an EMA evaluation is not fundamental error. Although a JCC is required to appoint an EMA where there is a disagreement in medical opinions, a party who does not timely seek the appointment of an EMA below will not be heard on appeal to complain of the failure to designate an EMA.”   The 1DCA further indicated that...
Post a Comment
Read more