PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND UNITED SELF INSURED SERVICES, APPELLANTS,
v.
MICHAEL C. BAIR, APPELLEE
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.
The court reversed the JCC's denial of the employer/carrier's motion to appoint an expert medical advisor in a workers' compensation case involving disputed medical testimony about whether the claimant had heart disease, holding that conflicting medical evidence on this threshold issue mandated appointment of an expert before applying the statutory presumption.
When conflicting medical testimony exists regarding whether a claimant has heart disease, section 440.13(9)(e) mandates appointment of an expert medical advisor before applying the section 112.18 statutory presumption.
[1] When conflicting medical testimony exists regarding whether a claimant has heart disease, section 440.13(9)(e), Florida Statutes, mandates appointment of an expert medica…
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 intelligenceThe employer/carrier and claimant disputed whether the claimant's atrial fibrillation qualified as heart disease and whether the claimant suffered fro…
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 Conflicting Medical Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case, the employer/carrier (“the E/C”) appeals the judge of compensation claims’ (“JCC”) denial of its motion to appoint an expert medical advisor. There was a dispute between the independent medical examiners over whether Claimant’s atrial fibrillation qualified as heart disease and whether Claimant suffered from hypertension, and the E/C moved for appointment of an expert medical advisor. The JCC denied such motion and, after a hearing, resolved this case without the benefit of an expert medical advisor by applying the statutory presumption provided by section 112.18, Florida Statutes (2002), and entered a final order in favor of Claimant. Such statutory presumption arises only after a determination that a claimant has heart disease (among other things), and any conflict in the medical testimony relating to the existence of a heart disease requires appointment of an expert medical advisor. Because of the conflicting medical testimony, section 440.13(9)(e), Florida Statutes (2002), mandated the appointment of an expert medical advisor before applying the section 112.18 presumption, and the JCC erred in denying the E/C’s motion for the appointment of an expert medical advisor. See Broward Children’s Ctr., Inc. v. Hall, 859 So. 2d 623, 625-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). We therefore reverse the final order and remand for the appointment of an expert medical advisor to resolve the dispute between the independent medical examiners.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BROWNING, C.J., LEWIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vill. Ctr. Cmty. Dev. Dist. v. Illeck (Fla. 1st DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Broward Child's. Ctr. v. Hall, 859 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)