KIMBERLYANN V. WOJICK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AND STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT, 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.
The appellate court reversed an order compelling a claimant to attend a functional medical evaluation (FME). The court found the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) lacked jurisdiction because there was no pending claim for benefits and no statutory authority for an FME. This decision clarifies the JCC's limited powers in workers' compensation cases.
No, the JCC lacked jurisdiction to compel the claimant to attend the FME. There was no pending claim for benefits, no specific statutory authority for an FME under chapter 440, and insufficient proof of medical necessity.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims lacks jurisdiction to compel a functional medical evaluation absent a pending claim for benefits, statutory authority for such an evaluatio…
[2] A Judge of Compensation Claims possesses only those powers expressly provided by statute and has no jurisdiction beyond that specifically conferred.
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 intelligence“Without deciding whether an FME is identical to an independent medical examination (IME), we hold the JCC lacked jurisdiction to rule on the matter here, given there is no pending claim for benefits, no statutory authority for an FME per se within chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and insufficient proof that the FME in this case was “medically necessary” as that phrase is used in section 440.1S(2)(a), Florida Statutes.”
Establishes the core reasoning for reversing the JCC's order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) ordered a claimant to attend a functional medical evaluation (FME). The claimant appealed this order, arguing the…
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 Jurisdiction Of Judge Of Compensation Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) compelling her to attend a functional medical evaluation (FME). We reverse the order. Without deciding whether an FME is identical to an independent medical examination (IME), we hold the JCC lacked jurisdiction to rule on the matter here, given there is no pending claim for benefits, no statutory authority for an FME per se within chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and insufficient proof that the FME in this case was “medically necessary” as that phrase is used in section 440.1S(2)(a), Florida Statutes. See Lehoullier v. Gevity/Fire Equip. Servs., 48 So.3d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding the JCC lacked authorization to compel an IME where the claimant had not requested benefits or medical treatment that the employer declined to provide); McArthur v. Mental Health Care Inc., 35 So.3d 105, 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding the JCC has only those powers expressly provided by statute and, conversely, has no jurisdiction or authority beyond that specifically conferred by statute).
Although the parties extensively discussed Interior Custom Concepts v. Slovak, 969 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), that case is inapposite as its holding addresses an order on attorney’s fees; to the extent it notes the JCC found she could not compel an FME, that ruling, entered in a prior order, was not before the court. We further note, without addressing the constitutional argument that the order to compel violates Claimant’s right to privacy, that a claimant always has the right to reject medical assistance, although the consequences may include forfeiture of certain workers’ compensation benefits. See, e.g., § 440.13(5)(d), Fla. Stat. (2006) (stating that an employee who fails to appear for an Employer/Carrier-ordered IME without sufficient notice or good cause is barred from recovering compensation for the period during which she refuses to submit to IME).
REVERSED.
DAVIS, PADOVANO, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lewis v. Dollar Rent A CAR and Esis WC Claims, 220 So. 3d 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)
Authorities Cited
- Interior Custom Concepts & Protregrity Servs., Inc. v. Slovak, 969 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- McARTHUR v. Mental Health Care, 35 So. 3d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Lehoullier v. Gevity/Fire Equip. Servs. & AIG Claim Servs., Inc., 43 So. 3d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)