Farnam v. U.S. Sugar Corp., 1D08-3534.
| Decision Date | 06 March 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D08-3534.,1D08-3534. |
| Citation | 9 So.3d 41 |
| Parties | Carl FARNAM, Appellant, v. U.S. SUGAR CORPORATION and Gallagher Bassett, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gilbert R. Panzer, Jr., Boca Raton, and Bill McCabe, Longwood, for Appellant.
Marissa M. Hoffman of Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans, Able, Lurvey, Morrow & Schefer, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellees.
Claimant challenges the Judge of Compensation Claims' (JCC) order on three grounds. Claimant argues the JCC erred in (1) ruling on Claimant's new claim for repetitive trauma after determining it was not ripe for hearing; (2) denying a request for an independent medical examination (IME) on the repetitive trauma claim based on her improper rulings concerning the claim; and (3) rejecting the parties' stipulation regarding compensability of Claimant's low back condition and need for treatment.
Our review indicates the JCC did not err in rejecting the parties' stipulation because competent evidence supports the JCC's finding that the workplace accidents were no longer the major contributing cause of Claimant's low back condition. Consequently, we affirm on that issue. However, we conclude the JCC erred as a matter of law by addressing the new repetitive trauma claim after acknowledging it was not ripe and the issue was not properly before her, and by relying on her findings related to this claim to deny Claimant's requested IME. Accordingly, we reverse and remand as to these issues.
Section 440.192(9), Florida Statutes, allows only claims that have been listed in a petition for benefits and mediated to be adjudicated by a JCC. Here, the claim for compensability of the back condition, based on a repetitive trauma theory, was the subject of a petition for benefits, but had not gone through the mediation process. The JCC correctly found the claim was not ripe for adjudication, and the petition for benefits based upon repetitive trauma was not before her. Consequently, the JCC erred in addressing whether repetitive trauma caused, to any degree, the low back condition. See Reynolds v. Skagfield Corp., 887 So.2d 434, 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ().
Because the JCC erred in addressing the repetitive trauma claim, she erred in denying the IME. Section 440.13(5), Florida Statutes, allows for an IME when there is a dispute concerning compensability....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salinas v. C.A.T. Concrete, LLC, Case No. 1D09-4208 (Fla. App. 5/21/2010)
...AWW, a JCC is not required to follow a stipulation that is refuted by competent, substantial evidence. See Farnam v. U.S. Sugar Corp., 9 So. 3d 41, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (holding that the JCC did not err in rejecting the parties' stipulation because competent, substantial evidence supporte......
-
Salzman v. Reyes
...evidence ” (emphasis supplied). Salinas v. C.A.T. Concrete, LLC, 46 So.3d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citing Farnam v. U.S. Sugar Corp., 9 So.3d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (holding JCC entitled to reject parties' stipulation where CSE supports contrary finding)). “However, stipulations should not ......
-
Booher v. Perkins Restaurant & Bakery/Risk Management Ltd.
...435 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Claims that have not gone through the mediation process are not ripe for adjudication. Farnam v. U.S. Sugar Corp., 9 So.3d 41, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). A JCC errs by addressing claims that are not ripe. Id. Here, the MCC of the need for surgery was not before the JCC......
-
LAW v. U.S. SUGAR Corp.
...Ganon, Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Morrow & Schefer, P.A., Hollywood, for Appellees. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Farnam v. U.S. Sugar Corp., 9 So.3d 41, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (holding that JCC could reject parties' stipulation where competent, substantial evidence supported a contrary finding). W......