Medicare and Workers Compensation

Medicare is like the mob. They’re protecting their turf. Some have chosen not to pay heed to their warnings. They have given us warnings. Non compliance is everywhere. Medicare ain’t playing. It’s mandatory. Know the facts, be proactive-start compliance efforts early. #LSlaw

Comments

Williams v Department of Corrections

This August 31, 2012 1DCA opinion reversed Judge Winn's JCC decision. In this case, the timeline is important. In short, the timeline was: A PFB for PTD benefits was filed on January 25, 2011. The carrier received the PFB on January 28, 2011. On February 16, 2011, the carrier accepted the claimant as PTD (18 days after receipt of the PFB). The very next day the carrier issued a $2,000 advance that had previously been requested by the claimant. Finally on March 10, the carrier issued a check paying the claimant PTD benefits minus the $2,000 cash advance.(the first installment of PTD benefits was made 41 days after the PFB was received by the carrier.) Claimant's counsel filed for attorney fees asserting as grounds that the carrier initially denied the claim but ultimately accepted the claim. The JCC denied fees concluding that the advance paid was a discharge of liability from the date thereof until such advance is recouped by offset against subsequent be...

Perry v Ecolab

This January 13, 2012 1DCA decision overturned Judge Murphy's JCC Decision The 1DCA ruled that section 440.20(7) controls the payment of penalties and requires that a 20% penalty be paid if the compensation is not paid within seven days after the order is signed as opposed to after order becomes final. Click here to see the !DCA opinion

Arlotta v city of West Palm Beach

A March 26, 2012 1DCA decision that reversed JCC D'Ambrosio. This case continues to show the importance that the 1DCA is putting on Expert Medical Advisors (EMA). Judges of Compensation Claims have less and less control In a case where there are conflicting medical opinions. In this case, there was a conflicting medical opinion and Judge of Compensation Claims appointed an EMA to address “the issues of 1) whether the Claimant has gynecomastia, 2) the cause of the gynecomastia, and 3) what treatment is recommended.” However, before the claimant was seen by the EMA physician, the claimant had an unauthorized surgery. The claimant wanted to give copies of the unauthorized medical records to the EMA. The Employer/Carrier filed a motion to dismiss the Claimant's claims arguing that Claimant’s unilateral decision to undergo surgery prevented the EMA from answering the questions put to him and that the E/C had been prejudiced in its ability to defend the claims. The JCC fou...

Luks Santaniello's Florida Workers Compensation blog

Search This Blog