Cases

Claimant filed a motion for a $2,000 advancement for the purpose of paying the expenses associated with obtaining an Independent Medical Examination.  The JCC denied the advancement because there was a lack of evidence establishing a financial need for the advance. On appeal, JCC's order affirmed.

Claimant claimed that she was not required to prove financial need because she had established eligibility for an advancement based upon her impairment rating (1%) and the fact that the purpose of the advancement was to pay the expenses of an IME to support her pending Petition for Benefits.  The Motion for Advancement was denied by the JCC because she had failed to present evidence that her income was insufficient to pay for an IME and the claimant did not otherwise demonstrate a financial need for the advance.  The claimant had returned to work with a base salary of $75,000.

Ordinarily, orders concerning advances are typically reviewed for an abuse of discretion.  However, because the issue in this case was a legal issue (what a JCC may consider when deciding whether to award an advance), is a legal one.  Review as de novo.

The purpose of an advance is a "stop gap" to help the claimant avoid defaulting with creditors while awaiting the potential distribution of workers' compensation benefits when the reduction in income is caused by the injury.  The question in this case is whether a JCC may consider a claimant's financial need when the stated purpose for the requested advance is to obtain an IME in furtherance of a pending Petition for Benefits.  The court agreed that paying litigation costs was a sufficient basis for an advance.  However, the judge can consider the claimant's financial need (or lack thereof) when determinine whether to award an advance even if the purpose of the advance is to fund litigation costs.