JAMES BOCHINO, PETITIONER,

v.

FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Jackson v. Merit Elec. & Ace USA/Esis, 37 So. 3d 381 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
  …took the position it had complied with the stipulation, and, because “Dr. Chandler opined back is pre-existing and not related,” denied responsibility for the requested back treatment. Relying on Engler v. American Friends of the Hebrew University, 18 So. 3d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), the JCC found that the E/C was not barred from challenging the connection between the industrial accident and Claimant’s current need for treatment of his back. As of May 12, 2008, the only treatment recommended by Dr. Chandler…
• Teco Energy, Inc. v. Williams, 234 So. 3d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)
  …ger [*821] contest that the accident is the MCC of the injuries. However, an E/C may thereafter challenge the connection between a claimant’s need for specific treatment or benefits and the industrial accident. Engler v. Am. Friends of Hebrew Univ., 18 So. 3d 613, 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); see also City of Pembroke Pines v. Ortagus, 50 So. 3d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding E/C must pay for treatment as long as compensable condition remains MCC of need for treatment). When a work related injury combines with…
• Cespedes v. Yellow Transp., 130 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
  …demnity benefits associated with the surgery. ANALYSIS The Compensable Injury Once compensability of an injury is established, sc carrier can no longer contest that the accident is the MCC of the injury. See Engler v. Am. Friends of Hebrew Univ., 18 So. 3d 613, 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“Once compensability is established, an E/C can no longer contest that the accident is the MCC of the injuries at issue.”); § 440.13(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2005) (defining “compensable” as “a determination by a carrier or [JCC]…

Authorities Cited

• Abel Rivera v. Singletary, 707 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1998)
• Lopez v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 943 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)