Miller v. Jupiter Medical Center
31 FLW D1279
Facts of case supported the JCC’s conclusion that the employer/carrier was entitled to an IME even though a previous IME had been granted. A new dispute not previously considered arose as to whether surgery being recommended was related to compensable accident.
Claimant asserted that the employer/carrier was bound by the first IME’s opinion in accordance with Section 440.13(5), Florida Statutes (2001). Court determined, however, that this particular provision in the law means that once a party has selected an IME to address a dispute, the party is generally bound by that physician’s opinion as it relates to that particular dispute, even if it does not support the party’s position. In this case however a different issue arose supporting the need for another IME. Court determined that the party requesting an IME on a different issue does not need to use the originally chosen IME physician for every dispute that arises within the scope of the physician’s specialty. In this instance, the employer/carrier was entitled to select a new doctor to perform the IME.
There is no limitation in Section 400.13(5) regarding the geographic location of an IME. The IME, however, must be reasonable and subject to the JCC’s exercise of discretion.