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 "this Court has consistently held that it is the JCC’s role and duty to resolve disputes in medical testimony. "

As for timeliness of the EMA request, the 1DCA indicated that an EMA must be requested timely by the party seeking such relief on appeal.

All in all, it appears that this case gives the JCC back some of its power. Unless the claimant or the EC requests an EMA in a timely fashion, the JCC is not under any obligation to assign an EMA.  

Click here to see 1DCA opinion