Weather Engineers v. Presgraves

Decision Date05 January 2001
Docket NumberNo. 1D00-1876.,1D00-1876.
Citation774 So.2d 938
PartiesWEATHER ENGINEERS and Kemper Insurance Group, Petitioners, v. Joseph PRESGRAVES, Respondent.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

William J. Spradley, III, and Rachael E. Wade of O'Hara, Spradley & Waters, P.A., Jacksonville, Attorneys for Petitioners.

Kendall Mills-Conrad of McCullough & Glary, P.A., Jacksonville, Attorneys for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Employer/Carrier seek certiorari review of a Judge of Compensation Claim's order granting a motion for an independent medical examination at Employer/Carrier's expense. We grant review, and reverse the Judge of Compensation Claim's order.

When an employee is covered under a managed care arrangement pursuant to section 440.134, Fla. Stat. (1997), the JCC has authority to determine indemnity benefits, but lacks authority to determine entitlement to medically necessary remedial treatment, care and attendance if the claimant has not exhausted existing managed care procedures. See §§ 440.134(2)(b) and 440.134(16); Florida Distillers v. Rudd, 751 So.2d 754, 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)("The existence of a managed care arrangement would be relevant to the claim for medical treatment, but would not be dispositive of the claim for indemnity benefits"); Wiggins v. B & L Serv., Inc., 701 So.2d 570, 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (after consideration of the applicable statutes in para materia, claimant's request for an IME was properly denied if it involved the resolution of a dispute regarding medical treatment, care, or attendance, but not if the purpose was to resolve a dispute regarding entitlement to indemnity benefits).

At the hearing on Claimant's motion for an IME, it was undisputed that Employer/Carrier had a workers' compensation managed care arrangement in place, and that Claimant sought the IME in order to obtain medical treatment, not indemnity benefits. Therefore, the JCC departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering the psychiatric IME before Claimant had exhausted the existing managed care procedures, including its grievance procedure, pursuant to section 440.134. The JCC's order granting Claimant's motion for an independent medical examination is therefore REVERSED.

BOOTH, KAHN and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Valentine v. State, 5D00-1048.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 5, 2001
  • Begyn v. STATE, BUSINESS AND PROFESS. REG.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 15, 2003
    ...were argued in the briefs and fully considered by this court. Appellees also argue that this court overlooked Weather Engineers v. Presgraves, 774 So.2d 938 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Dramis v. Palm Beach County School Board, 829 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); and Florida Distillers v. Rudd, 751 ......
  • Dramis v. Palm Beach County School Bd.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 1, 2002
    ...remedial treatment, care and attendance if the claimant has not exhausted existing managed care procedures." Weather Eng'rs v. Presgraves, 774 So.2d 938, 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Although this case law (distinguishing between claims for indemnity benefits and medical benefits in situations ......
  • Kohout v. Benefit Administrators
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 2, 2001
    ...the grievance procedures required by the managed care arrangement. See § 440.134(15)-(16), Fla. Stat. (2000); Weather Eng'rs v. Presgraves, 774 So.2d 938, 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) ("When an employee is covered under a managed care arrangement pursuant to section 440.134, Fla. Stat. (1997), t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT