Workers’ compensation — Attendant care — Evidence — Judge of compensation claims erroneously accorded presumption of correctness to expert medical advisor’s opinion with regard to claimant’s need for attendant care where evidence did not demonstrate sufficient disagreement in the opinions of health care providers as to whether attendant care benefits were medically necessary at time of hearing or whether any need for attendant care was caused by compensable accident — JCC should have considered EMA’s testimony without presumption of correctness ordinarily granted to EMA opinions
43 Fla. L. Weekly D1549a
The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.
opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index