13.06.2014 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

7. JCC decision review<br />

KFC/Yum! Brands v. Benjamin Moore, 1D10-0599 (Fla. 1 st<br />

October 29, 2010)<br />

DCA<br />

At Final Hearing, the JCC accepted the opinion of the<br />

claimant’s long time treating physician over that of the E/C’s<br />

IME. On appeal, the E/C pointed out inconsistencies in the<br />

treating physician’s opinion and the claimant’s medical history.<br />

The E/C argued the JCC should have accepted the IME opinions<br />

over that of the authorized provider. The 1 st DCA held that the<br />

JCC’s decision was backed by competent substantial evidence.<br />

The 1 st DCA found the provider’s testimony, when taken as a<br />

whole, is neither unreasonable nor illogical, and has a legally<br />

sufficient foundation.<br />

8. Occupational Diseases<br />

City of Pembroke Pines v. Ortagus, 1D09-6168 (Fla. 1 st<br />

November 2, 2010.<br />

DCA<br />

The claimant is a firefighter and was diagnosed with<br />

hypertension. He was placed on light duty for four days and<br />

then released to return to full duty. Thereafter, his<br />

authorized provider gave him a prescription for medication to<br />

control the hypertension. He requested the E/C pay for the<br />

medication. The E/C denied the request arguing that statute<br />

112.18 only requires the E/C to provide continued medical<br />

treatment when the claimant is totally or partially disabled.<br />

It argued the claimant is no longer totally or partially<br />

disabled because he was released to full duty. The 1 st DCA held<br />

that once compensability is established, nothing in section 440<br />

conditions the receipt of medical benefits on continued<br />

disability.<br />

9. Counsel Disqualification<br />

Matrix Employee Leasing v FWCIGA/First Commercial Claim Services<br />

1D10-3054 (Fla. 1 st DCA November 2, 2010)<br />

The issue is whether the JCC has jurisdiction to rule on a<br />

Motion to Disqualify Counsel. The First DCA held that because<br />

the JCC is empowered to do all things conformable with law<br />

pursuant to Section 440.33 (1), the JCC has jurisdiction to<br />

determine whether rules regulating the <strong>Florida</strong> Bar 4-1.9 and 4-<br />

1.10 require the disqualification of a counsel.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!