Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

December 29, 2017 by admin

Workers’ compensation — Repetitive trauma — Medical benefits — Surgery — Judge of compensation claims failed to accord expert medical advisor’s opinion its due when he relied solely on “reasonableness” of recommended surgery and ignored EMA’s opinion that recommended surgery was not medically necessary — Because JCC failed to apply correct standard in assessing EMA’s opinion and further failed to articulate reason for rejecting the opinion, he abused his discretion in awarding the surgeries at issue

43
Fla. L. Weekly D66a
 
Top of FoWorkers’
compensation — Repetitive trauma — Medical benefits — Surgery — Judge of
compensation claims failed to accord expert medical advisor’s opinion its due
when he relied solely on “reasonableness” of recommended surgery and ignored
EMA’s opinion that recommended surgery was not medically necessary — Because
JCC failed to apply correct standard in assessing EMA’s opinion and further failed
to articulate reason for rejecting the opinion, he abused his discretion in
awarding the surgeries at issue

ASCENSION BENEFITS & INSURANCE
SOLUTIONS OF FLORIDA and CITY OF ORLANDO, Appellants, v. RUSSELL ROBINSON,
Appellee. 1st District. Case No. 1D16-5853. Opinion filed December 27, 2017. An
appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Neal P. Pitts, Judge.
Date of Accident: March 11, 2009. Counsel: Richard B. Robbins and Theodore N.
Goldstein of Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue, McLain & Mangan, P.A.,
Orlando, for Appellants. Charles H. Leo of Law Offices of Charles H. Leo, P.A.,
Orlando, and Richard W. Ervin, III, of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Tallahassee,
for Appellee.

(PER CURIAM.) In this workers’
compensation appeal, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) raise two issues on appeal and
Claimant raises three on cross-appeal. We affirm all issues with the exception
of the award of surgery challenged by the E/C, which we reverse as discussed
below.

Background

Claimant’s compensable injuries came
about as a result of repetitive trauma involving both hands and both elbows. In
2016 a disagreement arose between Claimant’s authorized treating physician and
Claimant’s independent medical examiner (IME) as to the nature of the treatment
needed to address Claimant’s compensable injuries. Claimant filed a motion
outlining that disagreement, which resulted in the appointment of an expert
medical examiner (EMA). Among other questions posed to the EMA, the JCC asked
that he opine as to what reasonable and medically necessary treatment was
needed for Claimant’s compensable hand and upper extremity injuries.

The JCC, in the order under review,
found that Dr. Rayhack, the EMA, “agreed that surgery on the residual lateral
epicondylitis and for release of the trigger fingers would be reasonable,” and
“that there is no clear and convincing evidence to reject the medical opinions
of Dr. Rayhack with regards to the reasonableness of the requested surgeries
being awarded.” Alternatively, the JCC found that Dr. Rayhack’s opinion
regarding surgical releases, when considered in its totality, was inconclusive.
Nevertheless, the JCC found, based on the opinions of both Dr. Rayhack and
Claimant’s IME, that the surgical releases of the elbow and trigger fingers
were reasonable and medically necessary. The E/C maintain on appeal that, in
awarding the surgeries, the JCC misinterpreted the EMA’s opinion. Rather, argue
the E/C, the EMA’s opinion was that the surgeries were not necessary nor
recommended.

Analysis

Where the JCC’s findings are called
into question as not consistent with the evidence, this court reviews for abuse
of discretion. See Ullman v. City of Tampa Parks Dep’t, 625 So.
2d 868, 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (“The role of this court must be to guard
against fanciful or arbitrary abuse of discretion in workers’ compensation
cases, and we will continue to do so by scrutinizing JCC findings under the
lift of the basic rule requiring [CSE] in support of such findings.”). See
also Lemmer v. Urban Elec., Inc., 947 So. 2d 1196, 1199 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2007) (reversing JCC’s denial of benefits based on findings not consistent
with record). “A court abuses its discretion when no reasonable person could
reach the same conclusion.” Verkruysse v. Fla. Carpenters Reg’l Council,
27 So. 3d 157, 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Under paragraph 440.13(2)(a),
Florida Statutes (2008), an injured employee is entitled to “such medically
necessary remedial treatment, care, and attendance for such period as the
nature of the injury or the process of recovery may require.” Under paragraph
440.13(9)(c), Florida Statutes (2008), an EMA must be appointed when “there is
a disagreement in the opinion of the health care providers.” Further, “[t]he
opinion of the [EMA] is presumed to be correct unless there is clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary as determined by the [JCC].” Id.

Here, the JCC found that Dr. Rayhack
testified that surgery for the residual lateral epicondylitis and for release
of trigger fingers would be “reasonable.” Reasonableness is not, however, the
only standard to apply when awarding medical treatment. As noted above,
paragraph 440.13(2)(a) specifically requires that the treatment be “medically
necessary.” Thus, it is not enough that the treatment be “reasonable,” it must
be “medically necessary,” and it was Claimant’s burden to prove medical
necessity. See Morrow v. Sam’s Club, 17 So. 3d 763, 764 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2009) (explaining that entitlement to all medical treatment is governed by
paragraph 440.13(2)(a), “which requires a showing of medical necessity”). See
also
Trevino v. Dep’t of Revenue, 82 So. 3d 930, 932 (Fla. 1st DCA
2011) (“Generally, it is the claimant’s burden to prove entitlement to any
requested benefit.”).

Importantly, Dr. Rayhack did not
opine that the surgeries were medically necessary. To the contrary, he made it
clear that he was not recommending them. In his report, he stated that he
“would not recommend additional upper extremity surgery as I feel it is
unlikely that this patient would benefit from additional hand, wrist, or elbow
surgery.” On direct examination during his deposition he explained his concern
with trigger finger surgery; specifically, it had the possibility to make
Claimant worse and was unlikely to offer Claimant any relief. He had similar
concerns about the elbow surgery, explaining that surgery is rarely done and
only for refractory cases; rather, it is almost always treated conservatively.
On cross-examination, Dr. Rayhack opined that no further surgeries on the
relevant nerves were recommended, although he did agree that the trigger finger
releases were “reasonable” if some other physician wanted to do them.

The JCC’s error in relying on
“reasonableness,” and ignoring medical necessity, both in his primary analysis
and in his alternative analysis, is that the JCC failed to accord the EMA’s
opinion its due — that it is presumptively correct. Further, the JCC failed to
articulate clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. The doctor was asked
whether there was any treatment he would recommend. He responded that he did
not recommend further upper extremity surgeries. His acknowledgement that
another physician might perform such a surgery is not clear and convincing
evidence so as to call his opinion into question. See Travelers Ins.
v. Armstrong
, 118 So. 3d 865, 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (reversing JCC’s
rejection of EMA’s opinion for failure to articulate clear and convincing
reasons for doing so where one reason given was that “JCC found that it was
‘notable’ that the EMA avoided answering a question about whether Claimant was
a surgical candidate. However, the record shows that the EMA stated in his
report that he would not recommend surgery for Claimant and he reaffirmed this
statement during this deposition”).

Because the JCC failed to apply the
correct standard in assessing Dr. Rayhack’s opinion, and further failed to
clearly articulate a reason for rejecting the EMA’s opinion, he abused his
discretion in awarding the surgeries, and this issue is reversed.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM in apart, and
REVERSE in part, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
(WOLF, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.)

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

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

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982