RAFAEL A. PEREZ, PETITIONER/CLAIMANT,
v.
EASTERN AIRLINES, INC., RESPONDENT/EMPLOYER/CARRIER
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.
The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part an order finding an employer/carrier liable for a portion of claimant's attorney's fees and directing them to contribute to compensation benefits paid by another employer/carrier.
The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the deputy commissioner's orders, specifically addressing liability for attorney's fees and contribution to compensation benefits.
[1] A statute allowing an employer or carrier to discuss an injured employee's medical condition with their physician does not mandate that such discussions occur ex parte.
[2] An injured employee's objection to ex parte communications between their employer's counsel and their physician, while offering to allow counsel's presence, is consistent…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis workers' compensation case involved appeals from two orders: one finding Orlando Precast Products and Alexis Insurance Company (E/C #1) liable fo…
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 Confidentiality Of Medical Records cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, Judge.
The petitioner, Rafael A. Perez, seeks a writ of certiorari based on an order of the judge of compensation claims allowing counsel for the respondent, Eastern Airlines, Inc. (Eastern), to discuss Perez’s medical condition with his physician in an ex parte fashion. Finding that the judge’s order departs from the essential requirements of law, we grant the petition and quash the order of the judge of compensation claims.
On January 6, 1988, Perez suffered a compensable injury during the course of his employment with Eastern. Eastern paid Perez temporary worker's compensation benefits but disputed his other claims, particularly those associated with treatment of his diabetes, contesting any causal connection between Perez’s back injury and his preexisting, diabetic condition.
When Eastern attempted to have a private discussion with Perez’s internist, Dr. Reid, pursuant to § 440.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1989), Perez objected to such ex parte communication, relying upon § 455.241(2), Florida Statutes (1989). Perez did provide Eastern with Dr. Reid’s medical reports and advised Eastern that he had no objection to a deposition or conference where his attorney would be present. Nevertheless, Eastern desired an ex parte discussion and brought the issue before the judge of compensation claims.
On April 4, 1990, the judge ruled that § 440.13(2)(c) provided authority for Eastern to conduct ex parte communications with Perez’s physician. We disagree with the judge of compensation claims.
Section 455.241(2), states in pertinent part,
(2) such [medical] records shall not be furnished to, and the medical condition of a patient may not be discussed with, any person other than the patient or his legal representative or other health care providers involved in the care or treatment of the patient, except upon written authorization of the patient.
Recently enacted § 440.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part,
Notwithstanding the limitations in s. 455.241 ... upon the request of the employer, the carrier, the attorney for either of them, or the rehabilitation provider, the medical records of an injured em ployee shall be furnished to such persons and the medical condition of the injured employee shall be discussed with such persons[.]
The judge is correct that § 440.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes, is an exception to the confidentiality constraints of § 455.241, Florida Statutes, and allows Eastern to discuss Perez’s medical condition with Dr. Reid. However, nothing in Section 440.-13(2)(c) requires that such discussion be had in the absence of Perez’s counsel. Perez has not prevented Eastern from obtaining the information discussed in the statute; he merely objects to ex parte communications and seeks to have his attorney present during discussions between Eastern and his physician. This is entirely consistent with the clear language of the statute, and Eastern has failed to demonstrate how the statute accords it the greater right of communicating with the physician in an ex parte manner. We, therefore, hold that, under the facts of this case, the judge’s order allowing ex parte communications to take place between Eastern’s counsel and Perez’s physician was a departure from the essential requirements of law. Accordingly, Perez’s petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the order of the judge of compensation claims is quashed.
WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adelman Steel Corp. & Claims Ctr. v. Winter, 610 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…8). Common law certiorari is an appropriate remedy for reviewing discovery orders in workers’ compensation cases and will ordinarily be granted when the order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. Perez v. Eastern Airlines, 569 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So. 2d 1307 (Fla.1991). See also West v. Branham, 576 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. dismissed, 583 So. 2d 1034 (Fla.1991); Franklin v. Nationwide Mutual Life Ins. Co., 566 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. dismi…1 / 3
-
Jeanni M. Cimino v. U.S. Sec. Ins. Co., 715 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…” Id. at 505. We recently reaffirmed this position in Reed v. Reed, 643 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). With reference to the second quoted paragraph from Klipper, we have rejected such a construction of silence. In Perez v. Eastern Airlines Inc., 569 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So. 2d 1307 (Fla.1991), the employer and its insurance carrier argued that they should be allowed to carry on ex parte discussions with the claimant’s physician. The claimant had no objections to their speaking…
-
Holiday INN & Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc. v. Mirta RE, 643 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…nt to Rule 4.090(g), videotapes, surveillance is not properly discoverable at this time.” During Dr. Certo’s deposition, claimant interposed an objection to any testimony regarding the surveillance tape based, in part, on Perez v. Eastern Airlines, 569 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), regarding ex parte communications by the E/C with claimant’s physician. Claimant’s counsel noted that the claimant had not yet viewed the surveillance tape at the time of the July 9th deposition. The claimant had been deposed Ju…