PATRICIA VICKERS, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
UNITY OF LAKE WORTH AND COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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.
A workers' compensation case where the claimant appealed denial of increased attendant care benefits while the employer/carrier cross-appealed an order prohibiting ex parte communications with the claimant's physicians. The court affirmed the denial of benefits but reversed the prohibition on ex parte communications based on a 1994 statutory amendment.
The court affirmed the JCC's denial of increased attendant care benefits as supported by competent substantial evidence. The court reversed the prohibition on ex parte communications, holding that section 440.13(4)(c), Florida Statutes permits such communications regarding workplace-related medical conditions without the claimant's knowledge or consent.
[1] An order of the Judge of Compensation Claims is affirmed when its findings are supported by competent substantial evidence.
[2] Employers and carriers have a statutory right to discuss an injured employee's medical condition with their physicians, restricted to workplace injury conditions, without…
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“It is the policy for the administration of the workers' compensation system that there be reasonable access to medical information by all parties to facilitate the self-executing features of the law.”
Establishes the statutory policy permitting access to medical information and communications about workplace injuries
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant sought increased attendant care benefits in a workers' compensation claim. The employer/carrier was prohibited from engaging in ex parte …
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 Attendant Care Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The claimant appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying increased attendant care benefits. The employer/earrier (E/C) cross-appeal from an order of the JCC prohibiting ex parte communications by the E/C with the claimant’s physicians. Because the findings in the order on appeal are supported by competent substantial evidence, the order on appeal is affirmed. We find it necessary, however, to reverse the order on cross-appeal.
Effective January 1, 1994, section 440.13(4)(c), Florida Statutes provides in part:
(c) It is the policy for the administration of the workers’ compensation system that there be reasonable access to medical information by all parties to facilitate the self-executing features of the law. Notwithstanding the limitations in s. 455.241 and subject to the limitations in s. 381.004, upon the request of the employer, the carrier, or the attorney for either of them, the medical records of an injured employee must be furnished to those persons and the medical condition of the injured employee must be discussed with those persons, if the records and the discussions are restricted to conditions relating to the workplace injury. Any such discussions may be held before or after the filing of a claim without the knowledge, consent, or presence of any other party or his agent or representative.
As this Court has previously noted, this amendment effectively reversed the holding in Adelman Steel Corporation v. Winter, 610 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Reed v. Reed, P.A., 643 So. 2d 1180, 1182 n. 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). We reject the claimant’s argument that the amendment was substantive. There was no demonstration in the record of an abuse by the E/C of the statutory right to hold such discussions. Accordingly, the order on cross-appeal is reversed.
BARFIELD, C.J., and ERVIN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Adelman Steel Corp. & Claims Ctr. v. Winter, 610 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Reed v. Reed, 643 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)