Skip to main content

Robert Young v American Airlines

This December 31, 2013 1DCA opinion reversed Judge Rosen's JCC decision. This case had been before the 1DCA in 2012. In the 2012 case, the 1DCA reserved the JCC decision because the JCC erred in admitting and relying upon an unauthenticated report from the Employer/Carrier’s independent medical examiner.
The 1DCA remanded the case back to the JCC with instructions to enter a final order awarding PTD benefits based on the uncontroverted opinions of the claimant's IME unless the JCC found the opinion unpersuasive. 
On remand, the JCC rejected The claimant IME's opinions because he “was not persuaded”.  The JCC provided no additional factual or legal reasons for the rejection of the uncontested expert opinions regarding Claimant’s status as having reached maximum medical improvement and his permanent work restrictions.  
In this appeal, Claimant argues the JCC erred by rejecting the claimant IME's uncontroverted medical opinions because no legally valid basis for such rejection was provided by the JCC. 

 The 1DCA concluded that the JCC erred by failing to provide a valid reason for rejecting the unrefuted medical opinions based on findings such as flawed medical history, inherent illogic or incredibility, or any other reasonable basis for finding The claimant IME's opinions unreliable or unworthy of belief.  

 Click here to see the JCC 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

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