Trevino v. Dep't of Revenue, 1D11–0431.
Decision Date | 22 July 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 1D11–0431.,1D11–0431. |
Citation | 82 So.3d 930 |
Parties | Dora TREVINO, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE and DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT, State of Florida, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Laurie T. Miles of Smith, Feddeler, Smith & Miles, P.A., Lakeland, Susan W. Fox of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Orlando, and Wendy S. Loquasto of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
John R. Darin of Znosko & Reas, P.A., Longwood, for Appellees.
In this workers' compensation appeal, Claimant argues the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) erred by employing an incorrect legal standard when he rejected the opinion of the expert medical advisor (EMA) and failed to award (1) cervical spine diagnostic testing and (2) a lumbar spine evaluation at an anesthesia pain clinic. We affirm Claimant's first point on appeal and reverse the second.
In Claimant's first point, she argues the JCC rejected the opinion of the EMA when the record contains no clear and convincing evidence to support such a denial. See § 440.13(9)(c), Fla. Stat. (2007) (). Claimant sought an award of a cervical discogram and CT scan. The JCC found that the EMA recommended a surgical evaluation at which time the requested diagnostic testing would be considered. In doing so, the JCC did not reject the EMA's opinion; rather, he interpreted it differently than did Claimant. Because competent substantial evidence supports the JCC's interpretation of the doctor's recommendations, we affirm the JCC's award of an evaluation by a spine surgeon. See Ullman v. City of Tampa Parks Dep't, 625 So.2d 868, 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) ( ).
In her second point on appeal, Claimant argues that the JCC erred in rejecting the EMA's recommendations regarding treatment for the lumbar spine because the JCC did not recite clear and convincing evidence in support of his denial of the claim for lumbar treatment. In fact, the JCC found the EMA made no recommendations for lumbar treatment.
Generally, it is the claimant's burden to prove entitlement to any requested benefit. See Fitzgerald v. Osceola County Sch. Bd., 974 So.2d 1161, 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (). When the JCC denied the requested lumbar spine evaluations, concluding that Claimant did not meet her burden of proof, arguably, it was not necessary that competent substantial evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ascension Benefits & Ins. Solutions of Fla. v. Robinson, CASE NO. 1D16–5853
...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 ......
-
Thompson v. Escambia Cnty. Sch. Bd.
...specificity grounds where specificity would also demonstrate ripeness waives challenge to ripeness); Trevino v. Dep't of Revenue & Div. of Risk Mgmt., 82 So. 3d 930, 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (awarding specific medical benefit recommended by IME and expert medical advisor, but not authorized ......
-
Thompson v. Escambia Cnty. Sch. Bd./Escambia Cnty. Sch. Dist.
...grounds where specificity would also demonstrate ripeness waives challenge to ripeness); Trevino v. Dep't of Revenue & Div. of Risk Mgmt. , 82 So. 3d 930, 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (awarding specific medical benefit recommended by IME and expert medical advisor, but not authorized treating pr......