Case Law Update June 2021
Updated 6-18-21
St. Lucie Public Schools/ Relation Insurance Services of Florida v Alexander, ___ So.3d___ (Fla. 1st DCA 6/16/21) One Time Change/Claimant’s Ability to Choose The 1st DCA affirmed the JCC’s decision to allow the claimant to choose the one-time change doctor, based upon the recent decision of City of Bartow v. Flores, which is pending before the Florida Supreme Court. The underlying 1st DCA opinion in Flores noted that (“[An] E/C forfeits the right of selection if it subsequently fails to provide the alternate physician by unreasonable delay in acquisition of an appointment date.”). Here the JCC found that Flores controlled, and that the claimant had the ability to choose based upon the underlying facts, which were: the E/SA timely provided the name of Dr. Rivera to Claimant two days after Claimant’s request for a one-time change, the E/SA did not engage in any follow-up for sixteen days after providing Dr. Rivera with Claimant’s medical records for review and they did not make actual contact with Dr. Rivera’s office until twenty-one days later, at which time he declined to treat Claimant and another physician was located. Judge Nordby concurred specially, quoting Judge Winokur’s dissent in the underlying Flores 1st DCA opinion (“The majority states that [our earlier cases] merely set out the carrier’s obligation to ‘authorize’ a change of physician for the employee, whereas the requirement it discusses is a separate obligation to ‘provide’ a change of physician. I disagree for two reasons. First, as stated above, I find that this interpretation is inconsistent with the statute. Second, I believe that each of the cases noted above sets forth the entirety of a carrier’s obligations under [section 440.13(2)(f)]. No case implies that the fourth sentence of the paragraph imposes requirements additional to the ones they set out. As such, I believe the majority opinion is inconsistent with this prior case law.”) Click here to view Opinion |
Please note that the DCA Opinions and Merit Orders contained in this newsletter are non-final until 30 days after their rendition. Until that time, they are subject to amendment, vacation, or other action which may remove or alter some or all of the decision. Please contact any HR LAW attorney if you have a question as to the finality and applicability of an Opinion or Order. We endeavor to include any amendments or alterations to Opinions or Orders that may occur at a later date