MARLENE ALTEMAR
v.
LIFESPACE COMMUNITIES, AND COMMUNITIES, ETC.
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.
An expert medical advisor's opinion regarding attendant care necessity is not entitled to presumptive correctness when no sufficient disagreement among health care provider opinions exists to justify the EMA appointment.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) may not accord a presumption of correctness to an expert medical advisor (EMA) regarding the need for attendant care when the evidenc…
[2] The presumption of correctness afforded to EMA opinions applies only when there is a disagreement among health care providers.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the JCC accorded a presumption of correctness to the expert medical advisor (EMA) with regard to the Claimant's need for attendant care, and that this presumption was inappropriate because the evidence does not demonstrate a sufficient disagreement in the opinions of the health care providers”
Court's statement of the primary issue on appeal
Marlene Altemar claimed attendant care benefits following workplace accidents on December 26, 2011 and July 12, 2013. The JCC appointed an expert medi…
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 Expert Medical Advisor (Ema) cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D16-2129 _____________________________
MARLENE ALTEMAR,
Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v. LIFESPACE COMMUNITIES, INC., d/b/a Abbey Delray South, SENTRY CLAIMS SERVICES and SENTRY CASUALTY COMPANY,
Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims. Timothy M. Basquill, Judge. Dates of Accident: December 26, 2011 and July 12, 2013.
July 9, 2018 PER CURIAM.
Claimant challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC), and the Employer/Carrier (E/C) on cross-appeal challenges another aspect of the order. We find that the JCC accorded a presumption of correctness to the expert medical advisor (EMA) with regard to the Claimant’s need for attendant care, and that this presumption was inappropriate because the evidence does not demonstrate a sufficient disagreement in the opinions of the health care providers on that ground. See § 440.13(9)(c), Fla. Stat. (2013); Guerra v. C.A. Lindman, Inc.,
2
146 So. 3d 527, 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (reversing order appointing EMA because there was no disagreement in the opinions of the health care providers, in that the opinions of some of the doctors were stale). The E/C’s independent medical examiner did not render a definitive opinion as to whether attendant care benefits were medically necessary at the time of the hearing, or whether the need for attendant care was caused by the compensable accident. As such, the JCC should have considered the EMA’s testimony regarding Claimant’s need for attendant care without the presumption of correctness ordinarily granted to EMA opinions. See Lowe’s Home Ctrs., Inc. v. Beekman, 187 So. 3d 318, 319-20 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (holding that unsolicited opinions from EMA are treated as any other expert opinion, and not accorded a presumption of correctness).
We reject all other issues on appeal, including the E/C’s cross-appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
KELSEY, WINOKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. William H. Rogner of Hurley, Rogner, Miller, Cox & Waranch, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc. v. Beekman, 187 So. 3d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
- Noe Guerra v. C.A. Lindman, Inc., 146 So. 3d 527 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)