Seminole County School Bd. v. Tweedie, No. 1D05-2107.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Lewis |
| Citation | 922 So.2d 1011 |
| Decision Date | 06 February 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D05-2107. |
| Parties | SEMINOLE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD and Preferred Governmental Claim Solutions, Appellants, v. Candiss TWEEDIE, Appellee. |
Page 1011
v.
Candiss TWEEDIE, Appellee.
Michael L. Peterson, Esq. and Nicole Florentino, Esq. of Moore, Peterson & Zeitler, P.A., Orlando, for Appellants.
Timothy F. Stanton, Esq., Winter Park; Bill McCabe, Esq., Longwood, for Appellee.
LEWIS, J.
The employer/servicing agent (collectively, the "E/SA"), appeals an order of the judge of compensation claims ("JCC"), raising five issues on appeal, only two of which merit discussion. The E/SA argues that the JCC erred as a matter of law in awarding claimant, Candiss Tweedie, temporary total disability ("TTD") benefits based upon the opinion of an unauthorized provider. The E/SA also argues that, without that opinion, no competent, substantial
Page 1012
evidence supports the award. Although we agree with the E/SA's first argument, because competent, substantial evidence supports the TTD award, we affirm the JCC's order.
Claimant, a bus driver, was injured on May 13, 2004, in a work-related accident and sought, among other things, TTD benefits from July 23, 2004, through August 16, 2004. After seeing various physicians, claimant, without seeking authorization for chiropractic care, saw Dr. Jason Masters, a chiropractor, in August 2004. In his report, Dr. Masters wrote that he was "going to have [claimant] off work for the next two weeks and see how she responds with treatment." During Dr. Masters' deposition, claimant's counsel objected to the admissibility of Dr. Masters' opinions on the basis that he was not an authorized treating provider. The E/SA's counsel explained that she was taking Dr. Masters' deposition "for history" purposes, not opinion testimony. The JCC noted during the merits hearing that Dr. Masters' deposition was admitted for factual purposes only given that he was not an authorized treating provider. The JCC also noted in the order on appeal that Dr. Masters' deposition was admitted into evidence "for factual purposes." However, based upon our decision in Florida Distillers v. Rudd, 751 So.2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), superceded by statute on other grounds as stated in Jefferson v. Wayne Dalton Corp./Hartford, 793 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), the JCC decided later in the order that Dr. Masters was an authorized provider because the E/SA denied claimant's request for orthopedic care after July...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Bci Industries, No. 1D06-0469.
...427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Accord Fla. Hosp. Deland v. Wagner-Vick, 940 So.2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Seminole County Sch. Bd. v. Tweedie, 922 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Holiday Foliage v. Anderson, 642 So.2d 94, 98 (Fla. 1st DCA AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED. ALLEN an......
-
Pearson v. Paradise Ford, No. 1D05-0957.
...date of that hearing. The rule of Amburgey has continued to be applied to post-2003 accidents. See Seminole County School Bd. v. Tweedie, 922 So.2d 1011, 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Accordingly, we reverse the JCC's ruling that benefits were due through November 12, 2004, rather than December......
-
Boggs v. Usa Water Ski, Inc., No. 1D08-1515.
...of evidence the claimant was informed or should have known that she was released to work. See Seminole County Sch. Bd. v. Tweedie, 922 So.2d 1011, 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); see also Amburgey v. Palm Beach County Sch. Bd., 712 So.2d 426, 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Scotty's v. Boles, 680 So.2d ......
-
Russell v. Orange County Public Schools Transportation, Case No. 1D09-3974 (Fla. App. 4/20/2010), Case No. 1D09-3974.
...in admitting the opinion testimony of a physician who does not fall into one of these categories." Seminole County Sch. Bd. v. Tweedie, 922 So. 2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Further, although not defined in chapter 440, an "authorized treating provider," as the term is used in section ......
-
Williams v. Bci Industries, No. 1D06-0469.
...427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Accord Fla. Hosp. Deland v. Wagner-Vick, 940 So.2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Seminole County Sch. Bd. v. Tweedie, 922 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Holiday Foliage v. Anderson, 642 So.2d 94, 98 (Fla. 1st DCA AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED. ALLEN an......
-
Pearson v. Paradise Ford, No. 1D05-0957.
...date of that hearing. The rule of Amburgey has continued to be applied to post-2003 accidents. See Seminole County School Bd. v. Tweedie, 922 So.2d 1011, 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Accordingly, we reverse the JCC's ruling that benefits were due through November 12, 2004, rather than December......
-
Boggs v. Usa Water Ski, Inc., No. 1D08-1515.
...of evidence the claimant was informed or should have known that she was released to work. See Seminole County Sch. Bd. v. Tweedie, 922 So.2d 1011, 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); see also Amburgey v. Palm Beach County Sch. Bd., 712 So.2d 426, 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Scotty's v. Boles, 680 So.2d ......
-
Russell v. Orange County Public Schools Transportation, Case No. 1D09-3974 (Fla. App. 4/20/2010), Case No. 1D09-3974.
...in admitting the opinion testimony of a physician who does not fall into one of these categories." Seminole County Sch. Bd. v. Tweedie, 922 So. 2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Further, although not defined in chapter 440, an "authorized treating provider," as the term is used in section ......