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
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.