JUDITH A. BEDWELL, PETITIONER,
v.
STONE CONTAINER CORPORATION AND BROADSPIRE INSURANCE, 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.
The appellate court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari, finding that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) had the statutory authority to order an independent medical examination (IME) in a workers' compensation case. The court clarified that the merits of the underlying claim are irrelevant to the JCC's authority to order an IME.
Yes, the JCC had the statutory authority to order an IME. The law governing the date of accident granted the JCC broad discretion in ordering IMEs, and the merits of the underlying claim were irrelevant to this authority.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims has broad discretion to order an independent medical examination when the date of accident precedes the effective date of statutory amendme…
[2] A petition for writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that requires a showing of a departure from the essential requirements of law.
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“Claimant petitions the court for a writ of certiorari quashing the Judge of Compensation Claims’ (JCC’s) order compelling her to undergo an independent medical examination (IME) requested by the Employer/Carrier in response to her claim for medical benefits.”
This quote establishes the procedural posture and the core of the claimant's request.
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 petitioned for a writ of certiorari to quash an order from the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) compelling her to undergo an independen…
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 Judge Of Compensation Claims (Jcc) cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant petitions the court for a writ of certiorari quashing the Judge of Compensation- Claims’ (JCC’s) order compelling her to undergo an independent medical examination (IME) requested by the Employer/Carrier in response to her claim for medical benefits. Claimant argues that the JCC departed from the essential requirements of the law because the JCC did not have the statutory authority to compel an IME. We deny the petition because the law governing this June 22, 1987, date of accident gives the JCC broad discretion in . ordering an IME. See, e.g., Berry Corp. v. Smith, 576 So.2d 1366, 1367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding JCC authorized to order IME using investigatory power provided in section 440.29(1), Florida Statutes (1987)).
We write to address a second point argued by Claimant in support of her petition-one that reveals a common misunderstanding of the required element of a departure from the essential require-*1128merits of law. Specifically, Claimant argues that the JCC departed from the essential requirements of law because, under the circumstances alleged as true by Claimant, the law requires that Claimant must prevail on the issue of medical necessity of the medical benefits claimed; i.e., her entitlement to benefits is essentially assured. However, at this time, neither this particular legal issue, nor any other potential defense thereto, has been tried or adjudicated by the lower tribunal. And, any subsequent adjudication of such issues will be subject to plenary review on appeal. In short, the undetermined and inchoate merits of the untried claim for medical benefits is irrelevant to the question of whether the JCC departed from the essential requirements of the law when she ordered Claimant to undergo an IME in the midst of an unresolved and still-litigated medical dispute.
Because Claimant failed to demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of law, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is DENIED.
WOLF, THOMAS, and KELSEY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States Fire Ins. Co. & Oxford Shops of S. Fla. v. Hackett, 260 So. 3d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Berry Corp. & Commercial Risk Mgmt. v. Smith, 576 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)