LIBRADA GONZALEZ IZAGUIRRE
v.
BEACH WALK RESORT/TRAVELERS INSURANCE
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 affirmed a workers' compensation judge's exclusion of Independent Medical Examination (IME) testimony due to the claimant's failure to provide timely notice as required by statute. The claimant argued the exclusionary provision was directory rather than mandatory and that discretionary factors should have been considered before excluding the evidence.
The court held that the exclusionary language in section 440.13(5)(a) is mandatory, not directory. The word "shall" in the statute has a mandatory connotation, and when accompanied by a penalty for failure to comply, the provision is not amenable to discretionary exercise. Therefore, the JCC was required to exclude the IME testimony due to the claimant's failure to provide statutorily required notice.
[1] The word 'shall' in a statute carries a mandatory connotation, and when accompanied by a penalty for noncompliance, the statutory provision is not subject to discretionar…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Statutory language from Fla. Stat. § 440.13(5)(a) that the court interpreted as mandatory.
A claimant in a workers' compensation case failed to provide timely notice of an Independent Medical Examination as required by section 440.13(5)(a). …
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 Directory Statutory Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
provide timely notice, but she argues exclusion of the evidence under this provision is directory, not mandatory. Thus, she argues the JCC erred by failing to address the discretionary factors, such as prejudice to the opposing party, which typically must be considered whenever evidence is excluded based on untimely disclosure. See, e.g., Med. Logistics, Inc. v. Marchines, 911 So. 2d 823, 824-25 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
We reject Izaguirre’s characterization of the exclusionary language in section 440.13(5)(a), as merely directory. Based on its plain and ordinary meaning, the word “shall” in a statute usually has a mandatory connotation. See Steinbrecher v. Better Constr. Co., 587 So. 2d 492, 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). And, where the use of the word “shall” is accompanied by a penalty for failure to comply, a reading of the statute “leads inevitably to the conclusion that the provision is not amenable to an exercise of discretion.” Id. (holding penalty for late payment of compensation is mandatory where statute states such penalty “shall be paid”); see also Palm Springs General Hosp. v. Cabrera, 698 So. 2d 1352, 1356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (“The statutory language provides no support for the view that the statute is directory only, or that evaluation by expert medical advisors is to be left to the discretion of the judges of compensation claims”). Thus, because the Claimant failed to provide the statutorily required notice, the JCC was required to exclude the IME testimony.
AFFIRMED.
LEWIS, WINSOR, and M.K. THOMAS, 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. Steven H. Preston of Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein, P.A., Miami, for Appellees.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Dagostino, 303 So. 3d 606 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Palm Springs Gen. Hosp. & Fla. Retail Fed'n SIF v. Cabrera, 698 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Steinbrecher v. Better Constr. Co., 587 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)