Stahl v. Hialeah Hosp. & Sedgwick CMS, 1D13–3929.

• Decision Date: 17 December 2013
• Docket Number: No. 1D13–3929.,1D13–3929.
• Citation: 127 So.3d 1283
• Parties: Daniel STAHL, Petitioner, v. HIALEAH HOSPITAL and Sedgwick CMS, Respondents.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

127 So.3d 1283

Daniel STAHL, Petitioner,
v.
HIALEAH HOSPITAL and Sedgwick CMS, Respondents.

No. 1D13–3929.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.

Dec. 17, 2013.

[127 So.3d 1284]

Mark L. Zientz of the Law Office of Mark L. Zientz, P.A., Miami, for Petitioner.

Vanessa Lipsky of Eraclides, Gelman, Hall, Indek, Goodman & Waters, LLP, Aventura, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

In this workers' compensation case, Claimant has filed a petition for writ of certiorari review of an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) granting the Employer/Carrier's (E/C's) motion to compel an independent medical examination with Dr. Jonathan Hyde, regarding his compensable accident of December 8, 2003. For the reasons set forth herein, we grant the petition and quash the order.

To obtain a writ of certiorari, Claimant must show there has been “(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.” See Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So.2d 812, 822 (Fla.2004) (citations omitted). The reviewing court should consider first whether there is an irreparable harm, as it is a condition precedent to invoking certiorari jurisdiction. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Higgins, 975 So.2d 1169, 1176 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (citing Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc., 720 So.2d 214, 215 (Fla.1998)). The E/C has conceded the condition precedent is met here.

Regarding departure from the essential requirements of law, a departure from the essential requirements of law occurs if the JCC orders an independent medical examination without statutory authority. See Lehoullier v. Gevity/Fire Equip. Servs., 43 So.3d 834, 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Claimant here objects to the statutory authority for the exam on two different vectors—the independent medical examination itself, and the choice of independent medical examiner.

Claimant's objection to the examination is based on his assertion that there is no dispute. This objection fails, as follows. The statutory authority for an independent medical examination exists under section 440.13(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), for “any dispute concerning overutilization, medical benefits, compensability, or disability under this chapter[.]” In Cortina v. State, Department of HRS, 901 So.2d 273, 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), this court interpreted that quoted language, and concluded that “the only condition required for a party to request an IME is a dispute.” (emphasis in original) (citing ABC Liquors, Inc. v. Flores, 700 So.2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) and Union Camp Corp. v. Hurst, 696 So.2d 873, 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)). See also Lehoullier 43 So.3d at 836 (holding that “dispute” means “a legal dispute cognizable under the Florida Worker's Compensation Law” and JCC...