Request for Alternate Physician Denied
In the case of Butler v. Bay Center/Chubb Insurance Co., 2006 WL 3813782 (Fla. 1st DCA December 29, 2006), the First District Court of Appeals affirmed an order denying a petition for benefits requesting authorization of a specific pain management physician. The court found that the Employer/Carrier timely authorized a pain management physician and that there was no duty to authorize a physician of the claimant’s choosing unless timely care had not been provided. The Court went further to state that there was no duty to authorize an alternate physician when the claimant refused to treat with the initial physician that was authorized.
Negligence & Defamation Claim Denied
In the case of Marshall v. Amerisys, Inc., 31 Fla. L. Weekly D2967 (Fla 3rd DCA November 29, 2006), a workers’ compensation claimant filed a civil action against the workers’ compensation administrator alleging negligence, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and other claims stemming from a nurse case manager’s communication of statements allegedly made by claimant regarding his destructive nature and his ability to make bombs and silencers. The lower court dismissed the civil complaint and the district court of appeals affirmed. The Court found that the nurse case manager's alleged misconduct did not rise to the level of a separate and independent tort nor was it so outrageous in character as to support claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court went on to state that minor delays in payments, and conduct amounting to simple bad faith or negligence in claim handling are immune from suit.
Going & Coming Rule Claim Denied
In the case of Wilcox v. AG Mart Produce, Fla. L. Weekly D2950 (Fla. 1st DCA November 28, 2006), the First District Court of Appeals affirmed an order denying workers’ compensation benefits to a claimant based on the going and coming rule. The claimant argued on appeal that he did not have exclusive personal use of the vehicle, and that the traveling employee and dual purpose doctrine should apply to his case, thereby exempting him from the going and coming rule. The Court found that the claimant did not properly preserve traveling employee exemption for appeal and therefore refused to address this issue. The Court further found that there was competent substantial evidence supporting the JCC’s finding that the claimant had personal and exclusive use of the vehicle and that no dual purpose existed despite the claimant’s testimony that he had to complete his paperwork at home.
Claim for Benefits Denied Based on Signed Release
In Brewer v. Laborfinders of Tampa, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D2915 (Fla. 1st DCA November 22, 2006), the claimant filed an appeal after the JCC dismissed his petition for benefits. The JCC dismissed the Petition on the grounds that a release signed by the claimant in an unrelated matter satisfied all workers’ compensation claims. The release contained language releasing the employer from “any and all claims and demands, past, present or future, known or unknown, which claimant ever had or now has, from the beginning of the world to the date of the date of these presents, including but not limited to, any and all claims growing out of, resulting from, or connected in any way to employee's employment with [employer].” The claimant was represented by counsel at the time he signed the release but did not inform his counsel of the release. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal and held that the JCC need inquire no further than to determine whether a claimant was represented by counsel when he entered the settlement agreement, not whether he chose to take advantage of counsel's representation.
New Maximum Compensation Rate
Effective January 1, 2007, the new Maximum Compensation Rate is $724.00 per week.
