Editor: Felicia Wymer, Partner, Pensacola Office
Author: Travis Coleman, Partner, Tampa Office
Author: Abby Loeffler, Associate, Jacksonville Office
Huey Wright v. Eagle Roofing Products Florida, LLC/National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh
JCC Massey: Tampa District Order date: 09/10/2026
OJCC Case: 25-002639 Date of Accident: 01/06/2025
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: Major Contributing Cause, 120 Day Pay & Investigate
Summary: The Clmt injured his right knee when a hopper bucket struck it at work. The accident was accepted as compensable and e/c authorized treatment. An MRI showed ligament injuries and moderate to severe osteoarthritis. Dr. Salinsky documented severe osteoarthritis and discussed a total knee replacement. The Clmt requested a one-time change of physician, and Dr. Jadhav was authorized. Dr Jadhav later recommended the total knee replacement as the only remaining treatment option. The e/c argued that the pre-existing osteoarthritis, rather than the work accident, was the major contributing cause of the need for surgery and that the procedure was not medically necessary. The JCC found the replacement reasonable and medically necessary and held that the medical-necessity defense was waived because the carrier failed to respond to Dr. Salinsky’s authorization requests within 10 days. The JCC also rejected the MCC defense: despite notice of the osteoarthritis, the employer/carrier continued to authorize right-knee treatment without limitation and did not timely deny the condition or issue a 120-day pay-and-investigate notice. The JCC found the osteoarthritis had therefore been accepted as part of the compensable condition. Authorization and scheduling of the replacement, as well as entitlement to fees and costs, were granted. This ruling highlights the risks of unrestricted treatment authorizations and delayed responses or denials after notice of a pre-existing condition.
__________________________________________________________________
Aaron Abbott v. NSC Technologies, LLC/Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association
JCC Stanton: Jacksonville District Order date: 09/11/2026
OJCC Case: 26-005636TSS Date of Accident: 01/07/2026
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: Arising Out Of/Course and Scope
Summary: The Clmt worked as an outside machinist for TCI through staffing company NSC. While driving a company truck with a TCI coworker to a job at Mayport Naval Station, they stopped at the coworker’s home so he could retrieve his required identification badge. The Clmt entered the home to use the restroom and was bitten in the face by the coworker’s large dog. The e/c argued that the injury did not arise out of employment, relying on Sedgwick CMS v. Valcourt-Williams, a case involving an employee who tripped over her own dog during a personal comfort break at home. The JCC distinguished that case because this Clmt was at a coworker’s home for a work-related purpose and encountered a dog he would not be exposed to during his nonwork life. The badge was necessary for the assigned work, and the Clmt was furthering the employer’s interests by helping the coworker reach the job site. Although using the restroom was a personal comfort break, the work-related trip brought the Clmt to the home and exposed him to an increased risk. The JCC found the dog bite arose out of a risk incidental to work and was compensable.
__________________________________________________________________
Jose Luis Perrotin Cadena v. Vulcano Carpentry, LLC/Southern Owners
JCC Walker: Pensacola District Order date: 09/24/2026
OJCC Case: 24-014548JW Date of Accident: 04/01/2024
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: One-Time Change
Summary: Dr. Watt, an orthopedist, was authorized as the Clmt’s one-time change of physician. After a follow-up appointment with Dr. Watt’s physician assistant, the Clmt sought an order requiring Dr. Watt to examine him personally. The Clmt argued that section 440.13(2)(f) provides a “one-for-one exchange of physicians in the same specialty” and does not permit substation of similar providers. The JCC denied the claim and rejected the argument that a one-time change guarantees personal visits with the physician or bars care delegated to a physician assistant. The Judge reasoned the statute governs the change from one physician to another, not how the newly authorized physician may subsequently deliver care through a physician assistant. Furthermore, there was no competent medical evidence that the physician assistant’s care was inappropriate or medically insufficient. In fact, the Clmt previously relied on the physician assistant’s recommendations, including a physical therapy referral. The JCC found a judge could not substitute a lay medical judgment without supporting expert evidence. Clmt has since appealed.
__________________________________________________________________
Lukas Popek v. Clean Space Project, LLC/Travelers
JCC Jacobs: Orlando District Order date: 9/26/2026
OJCC Case: 24-008875JEJ Date of Accident: 5/23/2023
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: PTD
Summary: The Clmt injured his lower back in 2023 while trying to pull a stuck pallet jack. The injury was accepted as compensable and medical treatment was provided. During the course of treatment, the Clmt was followed by Dr. Ravi Patel and was treated conservatively initially, followed by injections, and then a microdiscectomy at L5-S1. Dr. Patel placed the Clmt at MMI with a 7% PIR and permanent restrictions including no pushing, pulling, or lifting more than 20 pounds. The Clmt was able to return to work in a light duty capacity initially following the work accident, but was eventually sent home as the employer saw him limping and in pain. Accordingly, the Clmt was out of work from July 8, 2023, through the date of the final hearing. The Clmt testified to applying for unemployment, SSD, and vocational retraining. The Clmt testified to applying to over 460 jobs, but was not hired, nor did he follow-up with the Employer regarding light duty. During the hearing, it was determined that the Clmt was applying for jobs that require licenses or education that the Claimant did not possess. The JCC found in favor of both the E/Cs Vocational Expert, Edward Filpes, and Rebecca Balter who performed a labor market survey. The JCC found that most of the Clmt’s work history was not industrial or heavy work, some of his limitations were self-imposed, and based on the Clmts age and educational/work background, as well as reviewing the medical reports and Blake factors, that the Clmt was not permanently and totally disabled.
__________________________________________________________________
Diego Sanabria v. SPC Roofers, LLC, South East Personnel Leasing/Lion Ins. Co.
JCC Anderson: Orlando District Order date: 10/1/2026
OJCC Case: 24-011976WWA Date of Accident: 4/30/2024
JCC Order: Click Here
Briefly: AWW
Summary: During the 13-week period prior to the date of accident, the Clmt worked for two separate covered employers. During the relevant period, the Clmt earned $13,560.61. The Clmt argued that because his work with one employer fell below 75% of a 40-hour work week, it would be more appropriate to utilize a flat $720 weekly wage baseline and add the average from the other employer ($522.51) to calculate a hybrid AWW of $1,242.51. The JCC rejected this argument. When concurrent employment exists within the 13-week window, all gross earnings from all covered employers must be pooled into one aggregate sum and divided by thirteen. The JCC determined that the AWW would not be calculated based on the Claimants argument and was set at $1,043.12.
__________________________________________________________________