MARY THOMPSON
v.
ESCAMBIA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD/ESCAMBIA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This workers' compensation case involved a claimant appealing the denial of her claims for surgery and disability benefits. The appellate court affirmed the denial of disability benefits but reversed the denial of surgery, remanding for further findings.
The court held that the denial of surgery was premature and that the Judge of Compensation Claims erred in not considering the independent medical examiner's opinion. The court affirmed the denial of temporary total and temporary partial disability benefits.
[1] An independent medical examination opinion is admissible in workers' compensation proceedings under Florida Statutes section 440.13(5)(e) and may support a claim for spec…
[2] An employer waives a ripeness objection to a workers' compensation claim by failing to assert the defense or move to dismiss on that ground.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We affirm without further comment the denial of TTD and TPD benefits. We reverse the denial of surgery and remand for further findings for the reasons that follow.”
This quote outlines the court's decision on the different claims presented in the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant, a school cafeteria employee, suffered a fall at work resulting in knee injuries. Her authorized treating provider did not recommend surg…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Authorized Treating Physician cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC), which denied as premature her claim for surgery and denied her claims for temporary total disability (TTD) benefits and temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits from the date of accident forward. We affirm without further comment the denial of TTD and TPD benefits. We reverse the denial of surgery and remand for further findings for the reasons that follow.
Claimant was a school cafeteria employee who took a hard fall at work on December 7, 2017. Her diagnoses included right knee bruising, swelling, chondromalacia, and meniscus tear. Her authorized treating provider, Dr. O’Grady, determined that she was not a surgical candidate and, in any event, attributed her chondromalacia and meniscus tear to preexisting conditions, not the industrial accident.
On August 30, 2018, Claimant obtained an independent medical examination (IME) with Dr. Dewey, who opined that she needed surgery and that the meniscal tear, as well as aggravation of the chondromalacia, was caused by the industrial accident. These medical opinions were admissible in workers’ compensation proceedings by virtue of section 440.13(5)(e), Florida Statutes (2018), and they were admitted here; moreover, the JCC accepted the IME’s opinion on causation.
The JCC ruled that the claim for surgery was premature because no authorized treating provider had recommended surgery. This was error, not only because the Employer/Carrier waived objections on grounds of ripeness and specificity by not asserting that defense or moving to dismiss the claim, but also because IME opinions are admissible and can support claims for specific medical benefits. Panzer Law, P.A. v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Dist., 150 So. 3d 823, 825–26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (holding that failure to object on specificity grounds where specificity would also demonstrate ripeness waives challenge to ripeness); Trevino v. Dep’t of Revenue & Div. of Risk Mgmt., 82 So. 3d 930, 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (awarding specific medical benefit recommended by IME and expert medical advisor, but not authorized treating provider); see generally § 440.13(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2017) (contemplating provision of treatment based on “examiner’s findings”).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
LEWIS, ROBERTS, and MAKAR, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Trevino v. Dep't OF Revenue & Div. OF Risk Mgmt., 82 So. 3d 930 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Panzer LAW, P.A. v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Dist. & Fara, 150 So. 3d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)