Cases

Employer/carrier scheduled an Independent Medical Examination for the claimant.  On the morning of the appointment, the claimant's attorney for the first time told the doctor that the claimant would be accompanied by a videographer.  The doctor declined to conduct the IME in the presence of a videographer without an additional advance payment of $1,500.  The payment did not get resolved by the time of the examination and when the claimant arrived with a videographer, she was turned away by the doctor. The doctor billed the employer/carrier a cancellation fee (no-show fee) of $600 for the missed examination.

Section 440.13(5)(d), Florida Statutes (2012), requires the injured employee to reimburse the employer/carrier half of the no-show fee if the employee fails to appear for the IME scheduled by the employer/carrier without good cause. Upon the employer/carrier's Motion to Tax Costs against the claimant, the JCC found claimant's announcement regarding the videographer was untimely and accordingly, the JCC ordered the claimant to pay the employer/carrier $300 as one-half of the doctor's no-show fee.  The JCC also found that he had no jurisdiction to address the reasonableness of the $1,500 charge (and also that the claimant had no standing to challenge this charge).  Nevertheless, the JCC directed the claimant be responsible for any additional physician fees assessed by the employer/carrier's IME because of the videographer being present.

On appeal, the JCC's determination that he had no jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness or propriety of the $1,500 charge was reversed.  The JCC does have jurisdiction to determine the appropriateness of the doctor's IME charge in reviewing a nonfinal order adjudicating jurisdiction and a review of this nonfinal order is pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.180(b)(1)(A). In reviewing nonfinal orders, appellate review is only limited to those appealable portions of such order which are appealable.

There is no question that the claimant is entitled to have a videographer at the IME.  Likewise, there is no dispute that the claimant is responsible for paying the charges assessed by the videographer.  The question in this case was who was responsible for paying the additional $1,500 charge assessed by the doctor simply because the claimant was having a videographer present during the IME.  The JCC determined that the claimant was responsible for the additional doctor-imposed charges.  The JCC determined that the claimant was responsible for additional doctor-imposed charges but he disclaimed any jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness or appropriateness of the charge in this case.  The court determined that this was the error in his order.  The JCC does have jurisdiction to determine whether the doctor's requirement of the $1,500 advancement payment for the presence of a videographer at the IME was reasonable and appropriate under the law or if that charge was unreasonable or not allowable under the law.

A physician undertaking the role of an IME is not at liberty to demand that payment be made on his or her terms but is instead regulated by statutory mandated reimbursement standears.  See Section 440.13(12)(d), Florida Statutes, and also the Workers' Compensation Healthcare Provider Reimbursement Manual, 2008 Edition, Section VII F.2 and 1.2 at 20-22.   The JCC may enter protective orders or other orders setting the parameters of discovery and under Section 440.33(1), Florida Statutes, in carrying out his duties, can resolve disputes as to whether the doctor's $1,500 advance payment was appropriate and chargeable.  The JCC is required to exclude the medical opinions of a purported IME physician who refuses to be bound by the proper legal billing process for such services under the workers' compensation law.

Case remanded to the JCC to determine the propriety and reasonableness of the doctor's additional in-advance video fee.  After determining the reasonableness of the fee, the JCC can then determine a) whether the claimant should be assessed half of the doctor's no-show fee under Section 440.13(5)(d) and, (b) which party, if any, is responsible for payment of the doctor's videographer fee at any future IME.