Editor: Felicia Wymer, Partner, Pensacola Office
Author: Travis Coleman, Partner, Tampa Office
Author: Katie Valley, Associate, Jacksonville Office
Dino Castronova v. Ajax Building Corporation/Arch Insurance & Gallagher Bassett
JCC Clark: Ft. Myers District Order date: 5/11/2026
OJCC Case: 25-022612FJC Date of Accident: 4/29/2025
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: TPD Benefits/Misconduct
Summary: The Claimant sought TPD benefits from September 12, 2025, through the Final Hearing, which the Employer/Carrier denied, arguing the Claimant was terminated for misconduct. The Claimant was hired in September 2024, at which time he passed a pre-employment drug test. After the accident, the Claimant passed another drug test. The Claimant continued working light-duty with the Employer until September 12, 2025, when he was terminated for not submitting to another drug test ordered by his supervisors. According to the Employer, this drug test was the result of reports from co-workers that the Claimant smelled like marijuana. However, there was no suspicion that the Claimant was impaired when the drug test was requested. The Claimant testified that he was not refusing the drug test, rather, refusing who the Employer designated to drive the Claimant for the test. The driver allegedly had become antagonistic and critical towards the Claimant since the work accident. Ultimately, the JCC rejected the Employer/Carriers argument that the Claimant was tested based on reasonable suspicion of impairment or use of drugs, opining that the testing was retaliatory, and ultimately rejected the misconduct defense, awarding TPD from September 12, 2025 through the final hearing, and continuing.
__________________________________________________________________
Lakecha Grant v. JetBlue Airways Corporation/Sedgwick CMS
JCC Ring: Ft. Lauderdale District Order date: 06/12/2026
OJCC Case: 23-003879MJR Date of Accident: 01/07/2023
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: Medical Necessity of Care After MMI
Summary: On January 7, 2023, the claimant injured her left knee when a piece of luggage on the roller belt struck the back of her leg, causing her to bump the front of her left knee on a baggage cart. The accident was accepted as compensable and initial treatment was authorized at Concentra Medical Center. The claimant treated with Dr. Mark Bridges, orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed her with a left knee contusion, and after requesting a one-time change in physician, was authorized to see Dr. Richard Strain, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Strain noted normal physical examinations and an October 14, 2024 x-ray revealed mild arthritis. Dr. Strain opined the MCC of the arthritis was not the work accident. On February 26, 2024, she was placed at MMI with a 0% impairment rating and released to work with no restrictions. Dr. Strain felt that the claimant was exhibiting signs of symptom magnification when he compared the pain diagram completed by the claimant to the lack of objective evidence of an injury. He felt the appropriate diagnosis during the time he treated her would be a normal left knee. He also opined that there was no reason for any continued treatment for anything related to the January 7, 2023 industrial accident. On December 8, 2025, the claimant filed a petition requesting a follow-up with Dr. Strain. The E/C denied this treatment, as Dr. Strain had opined that there was no further treatment needed. The JCC noted that the claimant did not offer any medical evidence that a return appointment to Dr. Strain was medically necessary. The claimant argued that Dr. Strain’s opinion should not be considered to break the chain of causation because he felt that the claimant had never suffered an injury. The JCC found the argument unpersuasive and noted that the doctor was not trying to break the chain of causation but rather was taking the position that the left knee is completely healed and no further medical treatment is necessary. The JCC cited Weitoff, which held that compensability and entitlement to benefits are separate concepts, and issues concerning entitlement to benefits remain subject to challenge even after accepting the compensable injury. The JCC found that the E/C accepted compensability of the knee contusion that had since fully healed, and the E/C challenged the need for medical care post-MMI. Once treatment was denied, the claimant had the burden of proving that this care was medically necessary, and she failed to meet her burden of proof. Therefore, the JCC denied the request for a follow up with Dr. Strain.
__________________________________________________________________
Mary Risorto v. JetBlue Airways Corporation/Sedgwick CMS
JCC Forte: Ft. Lauderdale District Order date: 06/23/2026
OJCC Case: 24-014453IF Date of Accident: 12/21/2023
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: Attorney’s Fees
Summary: On June 12, 2024, a petition was filed requesting authorization of left shoulder surgery and costs of $8.93 for certified mail service. On July 10, 2024, the E/C responded to the claimant’s petition and authorized the surgery and agreed to pay costs. The claimant’s attorney argued that the authorization for the shoulder surgery was not provided to the claimant’s authorized treating provider within 30 days of filing the petition for benefits, and therefore, there was fee entitlement. The E/C conceded to fee entitlement on the costs of $8.93, which was paid 13 days late, and stipulated to this issue on January 30, 2026. The E/C argued that there were no attorney’s fees or costs due related to the surgery, due to the timely response to authorize the surgery and any required pre-diagnostic testing. The JCC rejected the claimant’s argument that there was fee entitlement related to the authorization of the surgery, because the E/C agreed to authorize within 30 days. The JCC cited Samsone v. Crum, 201 So. 3d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), which held that when it comes to medical benefits, a workers’ compensation claimant’s successful prosecution ends when the carrier or employer accepts responsibility, regardless of when the carrier or employer actually pays the medical providers. The JCC also stated that actual scheduling of an authorized appointment is not required and therefore does not automatically open up the E/C to fee exposure. The JCC denied attorney’s fees as it related to the surgery. The claimant’s attorney was awarded attorney’s fees on the costs issue that was previously stipulated to, though the JCC reduced the amount of hours from 13.92 to 6.9.
__________________________________________________________________
Timothy Sullivan v. O’Reilly Auto Parts/Liberty Mutual Insurance
JCC Lewis: Ft. Lauderdale District Order date: 7/10/2026
OJCC Case: 25-018466DAL Date of Accident: 4/2/2025
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: 120-day Pay-and-Investigate
Summary: The Claimant was injured on April 2, 2025, which was initially accepted as compensable, however subsequently denied. At issue during the Final Hearing was a reverse shoulder arthroplasty. The Claimant was injured while lifting a 40–50-pound battery, when he felt a pop in his shoulder. MRI soon after the accident revealed tears in his shoulder, including the rotator cuff, supraspinatus, and infraspinatus tendons. During the course of treatment, the orthopedic surgeon opined that the rotator cuff tear was not acute, but instead predated the work accident. The doctor testified that the Claimant does need a total reverse shoulder arthroplasty due to the rotator cuff tear, but that the MCC is not the work accident. The doctor testified that the Claimant suffered a sprain/strain of the pre-existing bad shoulder, and all treatment to the shoulder was rendered for the sprain/strain. Eventually, care was transferred to another orthopedic surgeon. The second doctor opined that the claimants need for shoulder replacement surgery was due to the rotator cuff arthropathy and not the work accident.
The Claimant ultimately obtained an IME, who opined that the Claimant was asymptomatic prior to the work accident, which made it unlikely that the Claimant had a rotator cuff tear prior to the accident. Thus, the Claimant would need the shoulder replacement, and the MCC would be the work accident. At no point during this claim did the Employer/Carrier issue a 120-day letter, and no notice of denial was ever filed until February 2026, after the PFB requesting the shoulder replacement was filed. Ultimately, the JCC agreed with the Employer/Carrier, that the need for surgery was the pre-existing condition and not the work accident. However, the JCC opined that the Employer/Carrier authorized a second doctor to evaluate the need for left shoulder replacement surgery. At no point was a 120-day letter provided to the Claimant. Accordingly, the Employer/Carrier waived the right to contest compensability of the right shoulder condition. The JCC, therefore, granted the shoulder replacement.
__________________________________________________________________