Cases

JCC dismissed claimant’s petition for benefits with prejudice as a sanction for revealing confidential information obtained at mediation. Claimant had told his treating physician that the attorney for the employer/carrier had stated at mediation that the doctor had recommended three different operations. The doctor in an office note asserted that he disagreed with the employer/carrier’s counsel’s characterization of his recommendations and clarified that he had recommended only one type of surgery. The employer/carrier filed a motion for sanctions based on claimant’s violation of the mediation confidentiality requirements of Section 440.25(3), Florida Statutes.

 

The standard for reviewing orders dismissing a party’s case with prejudice is whether the JCC abused his or her discretion. Dismissal with prejudice is the most severe of all sanctions and should be employed only in extreme circumstances. If a sanction less severe than dismissal with prejudice appears to be a viable alternative, the trial court should employ such an alternative. A court may not dismiss a claim with prejudice as a sanction without making an express written finding that the offending party willfully or deliberately acted in violation of a court order.

 

In this case, there was no question that the claimant violated Section 440.25(3), Florida Statutes (2004). However, the JCC failed to make the necessary express finding in the order to dismiss with prejudice the petition for benefits that claimant willfully or deliberately violated mediation confidentiality. The employer/carrier also failed to provide competent substantial evidence that it was meaningfully prejudiced by the claimant’s disclosures to his treating physician. There was nothing in the notes of the treating physician that indicated any bias or animosity by the doctor against the employer/carrier. Accordingly, the JCC abused his discretion in imposing the severe sanction of dismissing the claimant’s petitions for benefits with prejudice.