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...
follow us for Florida and National Workers' Compensation News and case law updates.