Cases

Claimant alleged that JCC committed fundamental error by not appointing, sua sponte, an expert medical advisor (EMA) to resolve the disagreement in medical opinions.  The claimant himself had failed to request the appointment of an expert medical advisor.  Court determined that although a JCC is required to appoint an EMA where there is a disagreement in medical opinions, a party who does not timely seek the appointment of EMA will not be heard on appeal to complain of the failure to designate an EMA.  Court decided issues in case by summary affirmance under Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a).  The parties were directed to refrain from further briefing of the case and the court decided the issue on a summary basis.

The JCC does have jurisdiction to resolve medical dispute.  Unless  timely request is made for the appointment of an EMA, it is the judge's role to resolve such medical disputes.  Even when an EMA is appointed, the JCC may still be called upon to make findings of fact to resolve divergent medical opinions.