ORLANDO CANOVAS, APPELLANT,
v.
SUGAR SUPPLY, INC. AND ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES, ETC., APPELLEES
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.
Claimant sought to quash an order from the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) compelling him to execute Social Security Administration consent forms to allow the employer/carrier access to his disability records. The appellate court affirmed the JCC's order, holding that the JCC had jurisdiction to enforce the employer/carrier's statutory right to access such records even without a pending petition for benefits.
The JCC had jurisdiction to order Claimant to sign the SSA form because the employer/carrier has a statutory right under section 440.15(9)(c) to access claimant's SSA records, and the JCC has jurisdiction under section 440.33(1) to do all things necessary to discharge its duties. The JCC could compel the form because neither the statute nor the administrative rule expressly limits the forms a claimant must sign, and an administrative rule cannot contravene statutory provisions.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims has jurisdiction to compel a claimant to execute forms necessary to allow an employer/carrier to access the claimant's Social Security Admi…
[2] An employer/carrier has a statutory right to access a claimant's Social Security disability benefit records.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“An E/C has a statutory right to access a claimant's social security disability benefit records pursuant to section 440.15(9)(c). The JCC has jurisdiction, pursuant to section 440.33(1), to "do all things conformable to law which may be necessary to enable the [JCC] effectively to discharge the duties of her or his office."”
Establishes that the JCC had jurisdiction to enforce the employer/carrier's statutory right to access SSA records without a pending petition for benefits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant received permanent and total disability benefits from his employer/carrier for a 1999 work-related injury. After the Social Security Administ…
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 Compelling Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Claimant receives permanent and total disability benefits from the Employer/Carrier (E/C) for a work-related injury sustained in 1999. Claimant filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) compelling Claimant to execute forms authorizing the Social Security Administration (SSA) to release Claimant’s records to the E/C. Since the order was entered over Claimant’s argument that the JCC lacked jurisdiction over the dispute, the order “adjudicates jurisdiction.” Accordingly, we treat this review as an appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.180(b)(1) (2005). We affirm.
After the SSA denied Claimant disability benefits a second time, the E/C sought access to his SSA records pursuant to section 440.15(9)(c), Florida Statutes (2004).1 Historically, an E/C could access these records by providing SSA with a signed DWC-14 Form referenced in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-3.0194(3)(d)4; however, SSA recently began requiring an additional signed consent form which they developed. Claimant signed the DWC-14 Form, but refused to sign the SSA form.
Claimant’s refusal to sign the SSA form resulted in the E/C filing a motion to compel. The JCC subsequently granted the motion and ordered Claimant to execute the SSA form. Claimant contends (1) the JCC never had jurisdiction over the dispute because there was no pending petition for benefits, and (2) the JCC could not compel him to sign a form that was not referenced in Rule 69L-3.0194(3)(d)4. Claimant errs in both contentions.
As to the first contention, Claimant erroneously implies that an E/C has no remedy to enforce any of its substantive rights under chapter 440 unless a claimant first files a petition for benefits. An E/C has a statutory right to access a claimant’s social security disability benefit records pursuant to section 440.15(9)(c). The JCC has jurisdiction, pursuant to section 440.33(1), to “do all things conformable to law which may be necessary to enable the [JCC] effectively to discharge the duties of her or his office.” Here, the JCC compelling Claimant to sign the SSA form was conformable, or based on, section 440.15(9)(c) and therefore necessary to discharge the duties of his office.
As to the second contention, nowhere does section 440.15(9)(c) or rule 69L-3.0194(3)(d)4 expressly limit the forms a claimant must sign. Even if, as Claimant suggests, the rule implicitly limits Claimant’s responsibility to execute only the DWC-14 Form, it is “axiomatic that an administrative rule cannot ... contravene the provisions of a statute.” Zimmerman v. Florida Windstorm, 873 So. 2d 411, 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (quotations omitted) (quoting Dep’t of Bus. Reg. v. Salvation Ltd., 452 So. 2d 65, 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)). Here, the statute allows the E/C access.
AFFIRMED.
BENTON, POLSTON and HAWKES, JJ., concur. . The statute in effect at the time of the accident was substantively the same, but was located in section 440.15(10)(c), Florida Statutes (1999).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Revenue & The Div. of Risk Management-State of Fla. v. Groman, 46 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…1996) (accepting jurisdiction of non-final order which determined “subject matter jurisdiction” where order was entered compelling claimant to attend IME prior to filing of claim, and in absence of pending claim); and Canovas v. Sugar Supply, Inc., 921 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (accepting jurisdiction under Rule 9.180(b)(1) where JCC compelled discovery over Claimant’s objection regarding JCC’s jurisdiction over case based on absence of pending dispute or claim); with Kimmins Corp. v. Collier, 664 So. 2…
-
Covell v. Cracker Barrel OLD Country Store, 118 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…lacked jurisdiction over the motion because no petition for benefits (PFB) had been filed. We conclude that a JCC has jurisdiction to compel the production of documentary evidence, even before the filing of a PFB. See Canovas v. Sugar Supply, Inc., 921 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). In reaching this conclusion, we address only the jurisdictional issue and not whether Claimant is entitled to the discovery requested. See Stanberry v. Escambia County, 813 So. 2d 278, 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (explaining review…
-
Vazquez v. Romero, 179 So. 3d 402 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…eney Bros. Inc., 98 So. 3d 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (permitting JCC to award attorney’s fee to counsel for claim-, ant who. was pursuing benefits, when claimant’s- deposition was taken prior to filing of formal claim); Canovas v. Sugar Supply, Inc., 921 So. 2d 26 (Fla., 1st DCA 2006) (permitting JCC to compel claimant who was receiving workers! compensation benefits to release Social Security Administration records to employer/carrier while no PFB was pending); Southeast Recy cling Corp. v. McClure, 658 So.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Salvation Ltd., Inc., 452 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Zimmerman v. Fla. Windstorm Underwriting Ass'n, 873 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)