FL Case Law Summaries – 12/28/15
BY:
JCC ORDERS
Jacqueline Rodriguez v. Trino & Mimo Corp./Bridgefield Employers Insurance Company
JCC Kerr; Miami District; Order Date: December 23, 2015
OJCC Case: 14-013770MGK; D/A: 7/9/2013
Claimant’s Counsel: Raul De La Heria
Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: Maria Valdes
Briefly: DIAGNOSTIC TEST – JCC Kerr granted the claim for authorization of a discogram and found it is medically necessary and causally related to the industrial injury in order to determine the claimant’s lumbar pain generators prior to considering surgery on the claimant.
Summary: The JCC accepted the opinion of Dr. Donshik as the authorized treating physician, who saw the claimant on multiple occasions, over the opinion of Dr. Pagan, the Employer/Carrier’s IME physician. Dr. Donshik testified that Dr. Pagan is a neurosurgeon and is less qualified than he is to assess possible orthopedic pain generators such as trochanteric bursitis.
Everett Lively, Jr., v. JVS Contracting/Bridgefield Employers Insurance Company
JCC Spangler; Tampa District; Order Date: December 23, 2015
OJCC Case: 15-010964EDS; D/A: 2/23/2015
Claimant’s Counsel: David Bromley
Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: Timothy Jesaitis
Briefly: MISREPRESENTATION DEFENSE – JCC Spangler denied the claim for compensability and found the claimant knowingly made oral statements for the purpose of obtaining workers’ compensation benefits.
Summary: The JCC found the claimant’s testimony contained too many internal inconsistencies and far too many instances when the claimant could not recall key events and circumstances to be credible. The JCC concluded the glaring differences between the claimant’s testimony and the testimony of the Employer are the result of an intentional desire on the part of the claimant to create a theme that he was terminated by the Employer solely because he was injured, could not work, and required medical care that prevented him from working. Thus, the JCC found the claimant knowingly made oral statements for the purposes of obtaining worker’s compensation benefits in violation of F.S. 440.105 (4)(b)1.