Case Law Update February 2026
Publix Super Markets, Inc., Normandy Insurance Company, et al v. Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers Compensation, et al., ___ So.3d ___ (Fla. 1st DCA 2/25/26)
Medical Benefits/Rule-Making Authority
Over two years after oral argument, Bill Rogner received an opinion from the First DCA accepting his arguments that Chapter 440 does not authorize physicians to charge for and dispense medications in workers’ compensation case.
The original issue arose on 3/31/20, when DFS issued a memo stating that carriers could not refuse to pre-authorize and pay for medications prescribed for and dispensed by physicians. After initially rescinding the memo, the Rule was re-issued. On 3/7/23, an ALJ issued a Final Order stating that DFS had the rule-making authority to interpret the law to mean that injured workerscould obtain their medications from any source.
Effective 7/1/23, DFS interpretation was that F.S. s. 440.13(3)(j) allowed employees the right to choose doctors or nurses registered as dispensing practitioners. The DCA agreed with our argument that the plain language of the statute allows injured workers only their choice of pharmacy or pharmacist, and nothing more. They stated that the “absolute choice” language regarding pharmacies or pharmacists does not include dispensing practitioners. DFS’s interpretation improperly enlarged, modified and contravened the statute, and was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The DCA set aside the prior Order. Opinion_2023-0941.pdf
Tri City Electrical Contractors/Amerisure v. Gondek, ___So.3d ___ (Fla. 1st DCA 2/25/26).
Medical Benefits/Attendant Care
The DCA affirmed multiple benefits and the JCC’s denial of the E/C’s misrepresentation defense, but reversed an award of attendant-care benefits. F.S. s. 440.13(2)(b)(1) requires that attendant care be provided under the following circumstances: 1) performed at the direction and control of a physician and be medically necessary; 2) the physician must prescribe such care in writing; 3) the prescription must be provided to the employer/carrier; 4) the prescription must give sufficient detail about the required care; and 5) the prescription must not be retroactive. In this case, the award of 24/7 attendant care was based upon the claimant’s IME report’s discussion of attendant care, which generally described the claimant/claimant’s wife at-home situation. The DCA found this report to be the equivalent of exercising direction and control over the claimant’s care, nor was it a sufficient prescription for such. Click here to view Opinion
Lakatis v. Citrus County Sherriff’s Office/FSRMF, ___So.3d. ___, (Fla. 1st DCA 2/18/26).
Presumption/Occupational Causation
The DCA found the E/C did not carry their burden under the Heart-Lung statute to exclude occupational causation. The claimant met every requirement of the presumption, with the only question being whether or not the E/C provided his coronary artery disease (CAD), and resulting heart attack, were due solely to non-work related factors. The JCC appointed an EMA to resolve conflicting medical opinions, who opined in his report that the “most likely cause” of the CAD was a constellation of non-work factors. However in deposition he clarified that although there were multiple factors, his employment as an LEO was less than 51% the cause of the trigger. The DCA felt this testimony was not sufficient to carry the E/C’s high burden to show the disabling impairment was caused entirely by non-work factors. Click here to view Opinion