BARBARA MOSQUERA, APPELLANT,
v.
HOME SHOPPING NETWORK EN ESPANOL, LLC AND RSKCO, APPELLEES
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.
Florida appellate court reversed the JCC's denial of claimant's request for an expert medical advisor (EMA) appointment, holding that Section 440.13(9)(c) mandates EMA appointment when conflicting medical opinions exist.
Section 440.13(9)(c), Florida Statutes mandates appointment of an expert medical advisor when a conflict exists between expert medical opinions, and the JCC lacks authority to resolve such conflicts once an EMA is requested.
[1] Section 440.13(9)(c), Florida Statutes mandates appointment of an expert medical advisor when conflicting expert medical opinions exist, and the Judge of Compensation Cla…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The JCC does not have the authority to resolve conflicts between physician opinions once the claimant has requested an EMA.”
Court's holding regarding the JCC's limited authority in the context of conflicting medical opinions.
Claimant Mosquera sought appointment of an expert medical advisor to resolve a conflict between her treating physician's opinion and her independent m…
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 Expert Medical Advisor (Ema) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The claimant in this workers’ compensation appeal contends the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) erred in failing to appoint an expert medical advisor (EMA) to resolve the conflict in the opinions of claimant’s treating physician and claimant’s independent medical examiner (IME). The employer and the employer’s carrier concede the cause must be reversed and remanded for appointment of an EMA. The claimant requested appointment of an EMA when it became apparent that the opinion of her IME conflicted with the opinion of her authorized treating physician. Section 440.13(9)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), “mandates the appointment of an EMA in situations in which a conflict occurs between expert medical opinions.” Chapman v. Nationsbank, 872 So. 2d 390, 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). In Chapman, we observed that “[t]he JCC does not have the authority to resolve conflicts between physician opinions once the claimant has requested an EMA.” See also Media Gen., Inc. v. McGuire, 871 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); AT & T Wireless v. Frazier, 871 So. 2d 939, 940 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Palm Springs Gen. Hosp. v. Cabrera, 698 So. 2d 1352, 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying claimant’s claim for temporary partial disability benefits and denying claimant’s request for appointment of an EMA, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ERVIN, PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Palm Springs Gen. Hosp. & Fla. Retail Fed'n SIF v. Cabrera, 698 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- AT&T Wireless & Kemper Ins. v. Frazier, 871 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Tillman v. State, 872 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Chapman v. Nationsbank & Royal & Sunalliance Ins., 872 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Media Gen., Inc. v. McGUIRE, 871 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)