Skip to main content

Moya v Trucks and Parts

This December 20, 2012 1DCA decision affirmed Judge Jenkins JCC opinion. The issue being tried was authorization for an MRI of the right shoulder. 


In a final hearing in 2009, the JCC ruled that the claimant was at MMI for the right shoulder and that no further treatment to the right shoulder was needed.  



In 2012, the claimant was given a prescription for an MRI of the right shoulder and filed a PFB for same. The EC denied the MRI request and filed a motion for summary final order raising the defense of res judicata.  


The sole issue raised by the claimant was that the issue was not appropriate for a summary final order.  The Claimant submitted no affidavits, depositions, or other evidence to substantiate a material issue of fact that would preclude application of res judicata to his claim. Instead, he merely suggested the existence of such facts, providing no supporting evidence as required by rule 60Q-6.120(3), and represented that the treating doctor's deposition would be set, but gave no date or timeframe, and sought no extension of time. 


The JCC ruled the JCC appropriately entered a summary final order because Claimant failed to demonstrate a material factual issue precluding application of res judicata based on the January 2009 order.


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

Williams V City of Orlando

This June 13, 2012 1DCA reversed Judge Condry's JCC decision. The JCC denied compensability of the claimant's hypertension on the ground she failed to establish eligibility to rely on the statutory presumption occupational causation available via section 112.18. The claimant met three of the four requirements of section 112.18: 1    She was a police officer, 2    Her condition resulted in disability, 3    She successfully passed a physical examination upon entering into service. The JCC found that the claimant's essential hypertension did not meet the 4th requirement which indicates that the condition itself be one of those listed in section 112.18: "tuberculosis, heart disease, or hypertension. The claimant was diagnosed with essential hypertension. She introduced unrefuted medical opinion testimony that essential hypertension was the same thing and the same condition as arterial hypertension. In Bivens v. City of ...
Post a Comment
Read more