Williams v. Bci Industries, No. 1D06-0469.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Ervin |
| Citation | 943 So.2d 911 |
| Parties | Nicholas WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. BCI INDUSTRIES and Alternative Service Concepts, Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 01 December 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D06-0469. |
v.
BCI INDUSTRIES and Alternative Service Concepts, Appellees.
Page 912
Thomas A. Vaughn of Vaughn & Maxwell, P.A., Orlando, and Bill McCabe of Shepherd, McCabe & Cooley, Longwood, for Appellant.
Todd J. Sanders, Orlando, and Wanda Reas of Znosko & Reas, P.A., Maitland, for Appellees.
ERVIN, J.
Claimant, Nicholas Williams, appeals a final order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) denying his requests for medical and temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits. Claimant argues the JCC erred by (1) denying his motion to continue the merits hearing for the purpose of allowing claimant to present evidence rebutting the testimony of Dr. Ronald Oppenheim, who conducted on claimant a post-hearing independent medical examination (IME), and (2) ruling that claimant had voluntarily limited his income after being released to work with restrictions. We affirm issue one, but reverse issue two, and remand the case for further proceedings.
After the merits hearing was concluded, the JCC determined the medical evidence presented was insufficient to enable him to reach a decision whether Williams was suffering from a neurological condition, and, in order to resolve the question, he appointed a neurologist, Dr. Ronald Oppenheim, to perform an IME, as authorized by section 440.29(1), Florida Statutes (2005), allowing JCCs to conduct investigations.1 Claimant later filed a motion seeking a continuance of the hearing for the JCC to consider the records and/or testimony of two orthopedic physicians pertaining to arthroscopic surgery claimant had undergone after the performance of the neurological IME, and the report of an expert medical advisor (EMA) appointed following the hearing to resolve the conflict between the parties' orthopedic physicians. Because Dr. Oppenheim had deferred to claimant's orthopedic physicians with regard to orthopedic matters, claimant contends the JCC erred by denying the motion.
Our standard of review of an order denying a motion to reopen the evidence
Page 913
for the purpose of receiving new evidence is that of abuse of discretion. See Gayton v. Mills Septic Tank, 695 So.2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Claimant fails to show the JCC abused his discretion by denying the motion. It is undisputed that a JCC may order an IME on his or her own motion. See, e.g., Scotty's, Inc. v. Sarandrea, 645 So.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gonzalez–Gomez v. Dep't of Health, No. 3D11–1840.
...1st DCA 2004) (recognizing that imposition of a penalty is a complex task that rests within the sound discretion of the Board); Mendez, 943 So.2d at 911 (“When the Board imposes a penalty within the permissible statutory range, an appellate court has no authority to review the penalty.”); G......
-
Kale v. Dep't of Health, No. 1D14–4273.
...the Board imposes a penalty within the permissible statutory range, an appellate court has no authority to review the penalty.” Mendez, 943 So.2d at 911 ; see also Wax v. Horne, 844 So.2d 797, 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“The Florida Supreme Court has stated that ‘so long as the penalty impose......
-
Gonzalez-Gomez v. Dep't of Health, No. 3D11-1840
...1st DCA 2004) (recognizing that imposition of a penalty is a complex task that rests within the sound discretion of the Board); Mendez, 943 So. 2d at 911 ("When the Board imposes a penalty within the permissible statutory range, an appellate court has no authority to review the penalty."); ......
-
Kale v. Dep't of Health, CASE NO. 1D14-4273
...imposes a penalty within the permissible statutory range, an appellate court has no authority to review thePage 5penalty." Mendez, 943 So. 2d at 911; see also Wax v. Horne, 844 So. 2d 797, 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) ("The Florida Supreme Court has stated that 'so long as the penalty imposed [b......
-
Gonzalez–Gomez v. Dep't of Health, No. 3D11–1840.
...1st DCA 2004) (recognizing that imposition of a penalty is a complex task that rests within the sound discretion of the Board); Mendez, 943 So.2d at 911 (“When the Board imposes a penalty within the permissible statutory range, an appellate court has no authority to review the penalty.”); G......
-
Kale v. Dep't of Health, No. 1D14–4273.
...the Board imposes a penalty within the permissible statutory range, an appellate court has no authority to review the penalty.” Mendez, 943 So.2d at 911 ; see also Wax v. Horne, 844 So.2d 797, 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“The Florida Supreme Court has stated that ‘so long as the penalty impose......
-
Gonzalez-Gomez v. Dep't of Health, No. 3D11-1840
...1st DCA 2004) (recognizing that imposition of a penalty is a complex task that rests within the sound discretion of the Board); Mendez, 943 So. 2d at 911 ("When the Board imposes a penalty within the permissible statutory range, an appellate court has no authority to review the penalty."); ......
-
Kale v. Dep't of Health, CASE NO. 1D14-4273
...imposes a penalty within the permissible statutory range, an appellate court has no authority to review thePage 5penalty." Mendez, 943 So. 2d at 911; see also Wax v. Horne, 844 So. 2d 797, 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) ("The Florida Supreme Court has stated that 'so long as the penalty imposed [b......