MARIA MARTINEZ, PETITIONER,
v.
THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY AND HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Maria Martinez, a workers' compensation claimant, challenged an order compelling her to undergo rehabilitation with a nurse employed by the carrier without her attorney present. The Florida appellate court vacated the order, finding it departed from essential legal requirements because no evidence was presented to support it and it imposed no limitations on the nurse's scope of functions.
The court vacated the order, holding that it constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law because no evidence was presented to support it and it imposed no limitations on the nature of the nurse's functions or her contacts with the claimant, medical providers, or others.
[1] A judge of compensation claims may not grant a motion to compel rehabilitation without considering evidence.
[2] An order compelling rehabilitation that places no limitations on the functions or contacts of the rehabilitative professional constitutes a departure from the essential r…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because of this fact, and because of the fact that the order places no limitations on either the nature of the functions which Nurse Kreps is to be permitted to perform or the nature of the contacts which she is to be permitted to have with claimant, health care providers or others, we conclude that the order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law.”
Establishes the court's two-fold basis for vacating: lack of evidentiary support and absence of defined limitations on the nurse's scope and authority.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe employer/carrier moved to compel rehabilitation with Nurse Connie M. Kreps for medical management and control. Martinez objected and moved for an …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Departure From Essential Requirements Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By a petition for a writ of certiorari, claimant in this workers’ compensation case seeks review of the following order entered by the judge of compensation claims:
THIS MATTER came on before me, the undersigned Judge of Compensation Claims, on the employer/carrier’s Motion to Compel Rehabilitation. Having fully and carefully considered all evidence before me, I hereby find as follows:
1. That employer/carrier’s Motion to Compel Rehabilitation with Nurse Connie M. Kreps for purposes of medical management and control is hereby granted.
2. That claimant’s ore tenus motion for an order stating that the claimant’s attorney must be present at Nurse Kreps [ sic ] meetings with the claimant is hereby denied.
It is undisputed that “Nurse Connie M. Kreps” is an employee of the carrier. Claimant objects to the order as an infringement upon her relationship with her attorney; and as a denial of her right to have her attorney present during conversations between her and an employee of the carrier. Although the order implies that it is based upon certain “evidence” presented, it is undisputed that no “evidence” of any nature was presented to the judge of compensation claims. Because of this fact, and because of the fact that the order places no limitations on either the nature of the functions which Nurse Kreps is to be permitted to perform or the nature of the contacts which she is to be permitted to have with claimant, health care providers or others, we conclude that the order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. Accordingly, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and vacate the order granting the motion to compel rehabilitation.
SMITH, ZEHMER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.