Editor: Felicia Wymer, Partner, Pensacola Office
Author: Travis Coleman, Partner, Tampa Office
Author: Katie Valley, Associate, Jacksonville Office
Kristen Bell vs. Palm Beach County School District/Davies Claims North America
JCC Hedler: Tampa District Order date: 06/29/2026
OJCC Case: 25-027711TAH Date of Accident: 08/04/2025
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: Moving Costs
Summary: On August 4, 2025, the claimant sustained an injury to her left heel after falling from the desk she was standing on to decorate her classroom. The accident and injuries were accepted as compensable. She was diagnosed with a calcaneal fracture and underwent an ORIF on August 26, 2025, performed by her authorized treating physician, Dr. Clancy. She continued treating with Dr. Clancy through the final hearing and remained employed with the Palm Beach County School District. On May 30, 2025, roughly two months before the accident, the claimant moved into an apartment on the third floor of a complex. She signed a one-year lease. The complex did not have an elevator. At her initial visit with Dr. Clancy, she raised concerns about the third-floor unit, since she was provided with a scooter and wheelchair following the accident. Dr. Clancy provided her with correspondence, dated August 13, 2025, which stated that she would need “to be on the first floor for her recovery process”. The claimant testified that she informed the adjuster and uploaded the letter to the claim portal. The adjuster testified that she did not learn of the request until August 18, 2025, and by then, the claimant had already hired a moving company for her move to a first-floor apartment. The adjuster testified that she did not have time to investigate the claim. The claimant filed a petition on November 14, 2025, and the E/C filed its Response on December 3, 2025, asserting denial of the claim for reimbursement of moving expenses “on the basis that moving expenses is not a benefit under Chapter 440, Fla. Stat.” The E/C asserted the claimant did not have standing, nor did the JCC have subject matter jurisdiction, because the claimant’s mother actually paid the moving company. The E/C also asserted that the benefit was not medically necessary and the industrial accident was not the major contributing cause for same. The claimant argued that she had to pay her mother back for the moving expense and provided evidence of a Zelle payment (payable to ‘Mom’) made on April 25, 2026, in the amount of $1,553.24 for “payment for 8-21-25 movers.” The JCC found that since the claimant repaid her mother, she had standing to bring the claim for reimbursement.
The JCC acknowledged that, while case law has held that the “JCC has no authority to award benefits not specifically identified by the legislature and described somewhere in Chapter 440”, the moving expenses in this claim were classified as a medical benefit, as prescribed by an admissible medical opinion. The JCC held that there was subject matter jurisdiction, given that the instant claim was classified as a medical benefit. The JCC further held that the benefit was medically necessary, and that the uncontroverted testimony from Dr. Clancy was reasonable. The claim for authorization, provision, scheduling and payment of reimbursement to the Claimant for out-of-pocket expense for payment of Lee’s Moving Company’s invoice in the amount of $1,493.00 was granted.
__________________________________________________________________
Georgette Charles v. Maximus, Inc./American Zurich Insurance Company
JCC Young: Tampa District Order date: 07/20/2026
OJCC Case: 26-003783RLY Date of Accident: 01/27/2026
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: Idiopathic
Summary: On January 27, 2026, the claimant fell onto her knees while returning to work from the bathroom. She had suffered from cerebral palsy and had used a device to assist with walking since childhood. On the day of the accident, she was walking with a walker. When asked about the accident, she told the adjuster: “When I’m rolling the walker in carpet, it’s kind of—you have to put strength on it to make it roll over, and I lost control of the walker and I fall.” She reported that the carpet was stiff. At her initial medical visit, she told Dr. Rickie Dugal that she was unsure of how she fell, and that she did not remember tripping. She reported tenderness in her cervical spine, lumbar spine, and bilateral knee pain. In his deposition, Dr. Dugal was unable to opine whether the claimant’s issues were pre-existing or the result of her fall, since he did not know what her baseline was. He did, however, indicate on a DWC-25 that the injury was not work-related, and that her preexisting cerebral palsy predisposed her to falling. The JCC looked to Silberberg v. Palm Beach County School Board, 335 So.3d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022), which involved a claimant who had an idiopathic condition that caused his legs to go numb when sitting down, which resulted in a fall after standing up from his chair. The Court held that, “If a non-work factor contributed to the accident, the employee has to demonstrate that ‘the employment itself created the hazard’ or increased the risk of the accident.” The JCC found that, after reviewing the medical records and testimony, the claimant was not exposed to an increased hazard at her workplace when she went from a tile bathroom floor to the carpeted area she traversed in returning to her workstation. The claimant’s idiopathic preexisting condition caused her, as she testified, to not have any balance, requiring the use of a walker. The JCC held that the major contributing cause of the claimant’s accident/injuries did not arise out of the work she was performing and that the cause was the claimant’s idiopathic cerebral palsy. The claimant’s claim for compensability and request for medical treatment was denied.
__________________________________________________________________
Jeannine Paschall v. NFC Logistics dba Rent-A-Center/Sedgwick CMS
JCC Anthony: Tampa District Order date: 07/24/2026
OJCC Case: 24-013411BJA Date of Accident: 3/1/24, 3/22/24
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: Permanent Total Disability
Summary: The Claimant was injured when a box containing a king-size headboard and footboard fell onto her. She eventually underwent a cervical fusion in April 2025. The Claimant attempted to do transitional work during the course of her treatment. Her first assignment ended as the facility didn’t have AC, which caused her to go to the hospital. The other job placement ended as she was asked to work from 7 am to 8 pm, despite also needing to do PT 3 times per week. When she tried changing her hours, the job informed her that she was not welcome back. During the course of the claim, the Claimant conducted a job search including nine applications and two interviews. Her restrictions at that time, per the FCE, were at a sedentary level including no lifting more than 10 pounds and carrying/lifting/pushing/pulling no more than 5 pounds. Additionally, the Claimant underwent a reemployment assessment, where zero jobs were found within her restrictions. Ultimately at issue here was TPD from July 30, 2025 through October 3, 2025, and PTD from December 20, 2025 and continuing. As the Claimant was on restrictions, not at MMI, and the Employer was unable to offer a position within her restrictions, TPD was granted. Additionally, accepting the Claimants vocational expert over the Employer/Carriers, the JCC also found that the Claimant was precluded from working in at least a sedentary position within 50 miles of her residence.
__________________________________________________________________
David Wilcox v. Tree Farms Inc dba Cornerstone Solutions Group/Gallagher Bassett
JCC Anthony: Tampa District Order date: 8/7/2026
OJCC Case: 25-021536BJA Date of Accident: 9/11/2024
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: PICA on Impairment Benefits
Summary: The Claimant testified to receiving two unexpected impairment benefit checks which indicated “three of three.” The Claimant did not receive the initial check, which he informed his attorney of. The Adjuster testified that a check was stopped on February 23, 2026, for the period of September 30, 2025 – October 13, 2025. Afterwards, Claimants Counsel reached out to the adjuster regarding the missing check, and the adjuster responded whether the Claimant would like the check reissued but didn’t receive a response. The check was reissued on March 10, 2026, without any penalties or interest. Ultimately, the JCC found that no penalties were due, as the adjuster attempted to correct the issue of the stopped check, but Claimants Counsel did not respond, but did award interest.
__________________________________________________________________
Suzanne Scherfer v. Orange County Public Schools/USIS
JCC Pitts: Orlando District Order date: 8/7/2026
OJCC Case: 21-023022NPP Date of Accident: 5/24/2021
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: MCC/120-day
Summary: The Claimant’s injury occurred when a 6 foot 4 autistic student jumped into her lap, injuring her lower back. Treatment was authorized, and initially the Claimant was diagnosed with a lumbar strain and exacerbation of pre-existing lumbar degenerative condition. She was then authorized to treat with a spine specialist due to lack of progress with PT, and the Claimant was eventually placed at MMI on October 15, 2021. The Claimant then sought an IME with Dr. Appel, who diagnosed the Claimant with right SI joint dysfunction and lumbago. Afterwards, the spine specialist reevaluated the Claimant based on the IME findings, and although initially discounted the potential SI joint injury, referred the Claimant to pain management for right SI joint injection. The right SI joint was placed at MMI on December 6, 2022. During post-MMI follow-ups, additional imaging was performed revealing disc protrusions, fissures, and canal narrowing.
Care was then transferred to Dr. Marc Gerber, and upon reviewing the imaging, he diagnosed the Claimant with mild hip osteoarthritis bilaterally and some trochanteric bursitis. She was later referred to a hip specialist, and Dr. Craig Jones was authorized. During the first appointment with Dr. Jones, the Claimant was placed at MMI with a 1% PIR. The Claimant then treated under her health insurance for the hip, with imaging being interpreted by those doctors as showing a tear of the right acetabular labrum. The Claimant was then transferred to another hip doctor after Dr. Jones refused to treat. During treatment with Dr. Matthew Johnston, the Claimant was recommended for a hip arthroscopy consideration. Dr. Hurbanis evaluated the Claimant for the arthroscopy, and did not think it would be recommended as most of the pain appeared to be from the back, and placed the Claimant at MMI for the hip. Upon return to Dr. Johnston, he requested a second opinion on the arthroscopy. Upon the petition for the second opinion being filed, the request was denied and a denial of the arthritic condition was filed.
While reviewing the medical records, the JCC found the first notice of a potential pre-existing condition in the right hip in August 2023 with an MRI showing arthritis. Despite agreeing with the Carrier that the right hip arthroscopy was not due to the work accident, but the pre-existing condition, the Carrier never sent a 120-day letter. Additionally, they continued to treat the hip, including injections with the diagnoses of right hip osteoarthritis. Accordingly, the E/C waived its right to deny compensability of the right hip arthritis and accepted the hip as a matter of law. Further, the E/C provided no evidence that there was a break in the causal chain and that the MCC of the need for treatment is no longer the compensable injury. Accordingly, the JCC awarded the second opinion.
__________________________________________________________________