Cases

The claimant suffered a compensable injury to her wrist and knee. Knee treatment was by the employer/carrier. The authorized physician opined that at some date post-accident, the compensable injury was no longer the major contributing cause of the claimant’s need for treatment. A one time change of physician request was made by the claimant pursuant to Section 440.13(2)(f), Florida Statutes. The JCC determined that such a change of physician was not authorized when the question concerned the compensability of the need for continuing knee treatment.

 

The court determined that when such a request for a one time change in physician is made, it is mandatory that such a request be granted. The statute affords an employer/carrier the opportunity to retain control over the choice of the authorized doctor if they timely authorize a claimant’s request for a change and failure to do so forfeits this control. If the employer/carrier is of the opinion that the treatment recommended or provided is unnecessary or unrelated to the industrial accident, they can risk denying authorization for the treatment pending resolution of the issue by the JCC.

 

Section 440.13(5)(e), Florida Statutes, states that only independent medical examiners, expert medical advisors, and authorized physician can testify in proceedings before judges of compensation claims. In this case, the testifying doctor was authorized to treat the claimant’s wrist but not her shoulder. Even though authorized to treat the claimant’s wrist only, the doctor was permitted to testify in regards to the causal connection between the claimant’s shoulder complaints and the compensable accident. There is nothing in Section 440.13(9)(c) that requires that for a medical opinion to be admissible, the doctor giving the opinion must be authorized to evaluate or treat a specific condition or body part; it only requires that the doctor be authorized to treat the claimant.

 

Even though the doctor was permitted to testify in regards to his opinions on causal connection, court determined that it was error for the JCC to appoint an expert medical advisor based on the testimony of the authorized doctor and alleged conflicting medical evidence. The authorized doctor did not examine the claimant’s shoulder or examine any diagnostic studies or medical records pertaining to her shoulder. Accordingly, the doctor’s opinion was insufficient to create a conflict of opinions triggering the necessity of an expert medical advisor.