Florida Law Weekly - Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, PA

2. Evidence
Locker v. United Pharmaceutical Group, Inc., 1D10-0464 (Fla. 1 st
DCA October 29, 2010).
The claimant filed a PFB requesting authorization of
continued treatment for her right shoulder and attached a note
from an authorized provider detailing the recommended treatment.
On a prior issue, the JCC relied on an EMA who opined the
claimant had returned to baseline and no further treatment is
medically necessary. The E/C filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Petition arguing that since the claimant failed to challenge the
EMA’s prior opinion, she was not entitled to re-litigate the
issue. Thus, the current claims cannot be in “default, ripe,
due, and owing” as required by the statutes. The JCC granted
the Motion relying on the prior EMA’s opinion. The 1 st DCA
reversed and held that a JCC must not look outside the four
corners of the Petition when ruling on a Motion to Dismiss.
3. Settlement
Cordovez v. High Rise Installation, Inc., 1D09-5786 (Fla. 1 st
October 29, 2010).
DCA
The claimant sought reversal of the JCC’s denial of his
Motion to Vacate settlement. He argued that a new condition
presented after settlement that neither party knew about and,
thus, the settlement should be vacated based on a mutual mistake
of fact. The E/C cited settlement language releasing themselves
of all future benefits related to the work accident. In a
follow-up deposition, the authorized provider opined the unknown
injury was likely caused by the work accident. The 1 st DCA
upheld the JCC’s denial of the Motion by reasoning that the time
to ascertain the full implications of the claimant’s injury is
prior to settlement.
4. Medical Benefits
Harman v. Gadsden Correctional Facility, 1D10-1227 (Fla. 1 st
October 29, 2010).
DCA
The claimant alleged an injury to her knee. The accident
was accepted as compensable and medical treatment was
authorized. The initial authorized provider could not find an
objective basis for the claimant’s subjective complaints and,
rather than placing at MMI, the provider referred the claimant
for a second evaluation to determine if there are any objective