Cases

Court determined that Section 440.13(4)(c), Florida Statutes, allowing for ex parte communication/conferences between the employer/carrier and the claimant's treating physician is constitutional.  There is no violation of the privacy clause of the Florida constitution.

In this case, there was an issue as to the claimant's entitlement to temporary benefits. The treating physician had diagnosed a retroactive maximum medical improvement date.  Point in time that as a matter of law, temporary benefits would not be payable post-MMI.  A question on appeal is whether the treating doctor could retroactively diagnose maximum medical improvement.  

The question of whether a claimant has reached maximum medical improvement is a medical question that should be answered by medical experts.  However, a JCC's reliance on a physician's opinion must be supported by the substance of that doctor's medical testimony and not merely by the doctor's conclusion.  In providing a retroactive maximum medical improvement date, The doctor does not have to examine the claimant on that date of MMI.  The claimant also argued on appeal that the MMI date as determined by the treating physician was precluded because the claimant continued to receive medical care with an expectation of some degree of further recovery.  However, in this case, the doctor testified that all care after the initial treatment and MMI determination was palliative in nature.

The doctrine of estoppel may be a viable bar to retroactive assignment of MMI or work restrictions under certain facts.  However, in this case, the court determined that the claimant did not satisfy the required elements of estoppel.  See Gauthier v. Florida International University, 38 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).