Manning v. Floridian Carpentry, Inc. / AmTrust

HR Law Cases

JCC Weiss (Ft. Myers) (Andrew Borah) (6-2-23)– Denied compensability including claims for payment of hospital bills, indemnity and medical care. Claimant alleged to have pulled a muscle in his left leg at work. Claimant declined medical care for such alleged work injury. Nineteen days later, claimant was admitted into hospital unconscious and diagnosed with a staph infection in his left leg. Claimant remained hospitalized for months due to significant sequelae from the staph infection where, after the initial December discharge, was readmitted numerous times due to continuing issues. Claimant asserted through his IME, Dr. Eliot Godofsky, that his staph infection was either caused by a scratch sustained on the job that allowed bacteria into his body or the alleged work-related muscle pull, which caused already existing bacteria in his body to congregate in the area of the muscle pull, thus causing the infection. E/C obtained an IME with Dr. Stephen Renae who opined that the claimant’s injury could not have happened at work as the type of staph infection he sustained does not smolder over weeks but is fast-acting and presents itself within days/hours. Two weeks before trial, E/C moved for an EMA due to the conflict between the respective IME physicians. Claimant objected to the appointment of the EMA. Since the Motion for EMA was filed in close time proximity to the trial, the JCC conducted the trial reserving ruling on the Motion for EMA. One week after the trial, the Legislature amended the EMA statute stating the JCC “may” appoint an EMA when there is a conflict in medical evidence where the statute previously gave the JCC no discretion. The JCC found such statutory change to be procedural and applicable to the case. Relying on such statutory change, the JCC denied the Motion for EMA, then accepted the opinion of Dr. Renae that the infection was not related to the industrial accident based on the timeline of the symptoms. The JCC rejected the claimant’s IME’s theories as neither was supported by the facts. As such, the JCC found that the claimant failed to meet his burden of proof.  Click here to view Order