Cases

Claimant's attorney filed a motion requesting that the JCC enter an order appointing an expert medical advisor because of a conflict in the medical evidence as to the claimant's maximum medical improvement date.  The motion to appoint the expert medical advisor directed the JCC to appoint the expert medical advisor asking the JCC on his own motion to make the appointment.  Rather, the JCC entered an order requiring the appointment of an EMA as requested by the claimant's attorney thereby making the claimant responsible for all costs associated with the EMA.

Court determined that JCC erred in considering the motion for the appointment of an EMA a motion filed by the claimant requiring the claimant to be responsible for the cost of an EMA.  Claimant's attorney notified the JCC of the conflict in the medical evidence.  JCC should have ordered the EMA and in accordance with Section 440.19(9), the appointment should have been made on the judge's own motion to be paid for by the employer/carrier. 

Statutory interpretation is a question of law, reviewed de novo on appeal.  Interpretation of written pleadings is also reviewed de novo on appeal. 

The claimant had sought a ruling from the appellate court that the EMA provisions of the workers' compensation statute were unconstitutional.  However, an appellate court, when presented with the possibility of reading a statute in a constitutional manner versus determining it unconstitutional has a duty to construe the statute in such a way as to avoid conflict with the constitution.