Cases

Treating physician provided medical testimony and designated a retroactive maximum medical improvement date precluding claimant's entitlement to temporary benefits since MMI had been reached prior to the period of time for which temporary benefits were claimed.  The retroactive MMI date resulted from an ex parte conference with an employer/carrier representative.  On appeal, the question before the court was whether the doctor could testify to a retroactive MMI date ??? Section 440.13(4)(c), Florida Statutes, allowing for ex parte conferences with a doctor violates the privacy clause of the Florida Constitution.

The question of whether a claimant has reached MMI is a medical question that should be answered by medical experts.  In this case, the claimant argued that it was error for the doctor to provide a retroactive MMI date since the doctor did not examine the claimant on that date.  The court ruled that a doctor does not have to actually examine a patient on the date of the assigned MMI.  Court determined that there was competent and substantial evidence to support the JCC's determination as to the correctness of an assigned MMI date.  Claimant also argued that because of the fact that the claimant continued receiving medical care after the assigned MMI date constituted competent and substantial evidence that MMI date had not been reached as of the assigned MMI date by the doctor.  However, the medical evidence before the JCC regarding MMI was the opinions of the doctor that retroactively assigned MMI ?????

A review of constitutionality claims is de novo.  In regards to the claimant's claim for not allowing ex parte communications with the treating physicians by the employer/carrier was not a violation of the constitutional rights of the claimant based upon rights of privacy.  The court in the case of S & A Plumbing v. Kimes, 756 So. 2d 1037 expressly held that Section 440.13(4)(c), Florida Statutes, does not violate the Florida constitutional right to privacy.