ALL WEATHER CONTROL, INC. AND FEISCO, PETITIONERS,
v.
STEPHEN WAWERCZYK, RESPONDENT
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 court held that the Judge of Compensation Claims departed from the essential requirements of law by relying on an oral agreement not reduced to writing or dictated on the record.
The Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) granted a claimant's motion to compel out-of-state medical treatment based on an oral agreement between the par…
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 Departure From Essential Requirements Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on a petition for writ of certiorari to review an order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) awarding out-of-state medical care. In order to obtain relief by writ of certiorari, a petitioner must demonstrate both a departure from the essential requirements of law and an injury which cannot be remedied by appeal from the final order. ACandS, Inc. v. Askew, 597 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
In the instant case, the JCC held:
That Claimant’s Motion to Compel Agreed Upon Medical Treatment is GRANTED, as the Carrier [orally] agreed to provide the treatment and should, therefore, be held to their agreement.
Florida Workers’ Compensation Rule of Procedure 4.130 states in pertinent part:
No agreement or stipulation shall be valid unless: (1) in writing and signed by the parties or their attorneys, or (2) dictated on the record.
The JCC relied on an oral agreement which was never reduced to writing and never dictated on the record. Under a plain reading of Florida Workers’ Compensation Rule of Procedure 4.130, the agreement is not valid. Therefore, the JCC departed from the essential requirements of law in relying on the parties’ oral representations.
Furthermore, the injury cannot be remedied by appeal from a final order. The order requires the employer/servicing agent to furnish out-of-state medical care. This care will only be provided if the employer/ servicing agent pay the doctor’s fee in advance. Once the fee is paid, there is no statutory provision for reimbursement.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the order compelling out-of-state medical care is quashed.
BOOTH, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hines Elec. & Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. McCLURE, 616 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…see Doll House, Inc. v. Porter, 436 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (certiorari review allowed on coverage question, but only because the effect of order was to totally remove a party from the litigation). . But see All Weather Control v. Wawerczyk, 600 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (court determined that required payment to out-of-state medical providers constituted irreparable harm where there was no mechanism to seek reimbursement). . The language of the amended rule itself only requires irreparable harm…
Authorities Cited
- ACandS, Inc. v. Zack Askew, Sr., 597 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)