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

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