Jackson v. Columbia Pictures & Fireman's Fund

• Decision Date: 16 December 2014
• Docket Number: No. 1D14–3019.,1D14–3019.
• Citation: 153 So.3d 349
• Parties: Samuel JACKSON, Petitioner, v. COLUMBIA PICTURES AND FIREMAN'S FUND, Respondents.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

153 So.3d 349

Samuel JACKSON, Petitioner

v.COLUMBIA PICTURES AND FIREMAN'S FUND, Respondents.

No. 1D14–3019.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 16, 2014.

Laurence F. Leavy of Laurence Leavy & Associates, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Petitioner.

Scott A. Cole and Daniel M. Schwarz of Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for Respondents.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers' compensation case, Claimant filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking relief from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) entered June 6, 2014, granting the Employer/Carrier's (E/C's) motion to compel medical care. We grant the petition.

As background, Claimant sustained brain damage in a 20–foot fall in September 1986, reached maximum medical improvement in 1988, and was awarded medical and indemnity benefits, including attendant care that was in the nature of “remote surveillance” or “oversight.” Jackson v. Columbia Pictures & Fireman's Fund, 610 So.2d 1349, 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (finding such care medically necessary and remanding for determination of number of hours needed). Thereafter, Claimant was incarcerated for two periods: April 13, 1993, through September 30, 2005, and March 13, 2008, to July 31, 2012. A final order of the JCC entered July 8, 2008, essentially found Claimant needed 24 hours a day of attendant care, and awarded Claimant attendant care benefits for services “actually rendered.” In 2010, Claimant filed petitions for benefits (PFBs) seeking (inter alia ) the payment of attendant care benefits for care rendered by the State of Florida during his incarceration, in the amount of 24 hours a day, seven days a week, at $20 per hour.

In 2014, the E/C moved to compel an IME, and also moved to “compel medical care” with the authorized treating physician. Claimant objected that he had no pending claim for current or future medical benefits—just the past attendant care—and that the E/C could not force him to undergo treatment; the E/C responded that medical issues are in dispute, and that Claimant was medically noncompliant (Claimant admits he has avoided treatment because he does not want surgery for herniated discs and does not want to become dependent on medication). The JCC granted the motion to compel the IME, finding the 2010 PFBs were still at issue and by seeking a medical benefit Claimant had placed his condition at issue. The JCC also granted the motion to compel care, finding Claimant's refusal of an evaluation with the authorized treating physician unjustified, finding no evidence an evaluation would be invasive or cause irreparable harm, and finding Claimant's refusal deprives the E/C of the ability to carry out its statutory duty to investigate Claimant's entitlement to benefits. The instant case is C...