Gonzalez v. AMC/CCMSI

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gonzalez v. AMC/CCMSI

160 So. 3d 932, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 3569, 2015 WL 1086137

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 12, 2015

DocketNo. 1D14-5493

StatusPublished

This text of 160 So. 3d 932 (Gonzalez v. AMC/CCMSI) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gonzalez v. AMC/CCMSI, 160 So. 3d 932, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 3569, 2015 WL 1086137 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant filed a petition for writ of certio-rari challenging an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims that appoints an expert medical advisor (EMA) under the authority of section 440.13(9), Florida Statutes (2011). The physical examination by the EMA, were it to take place, would constitute harm not remediable on appeal because Petitioner objects to being physically examined. But the facts before us demonstrate a disagreement in medical opinions, sufficient to warrant the objected-to examination such that the JCC, in ordering the EMA, has not departed from the essential requirements of law. Any harm that might result from the EMA’s being asked to opine on facts or issues of law that are not properly within the EMA’s purview can be fully remedied on plenary appeal. Therefore, this petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED.

ROBERTS, SWANSON, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant filed a petition for writ of certio-rari challenging an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims that appoints an expert medical advisor (EMA) under the authority of section 440.13(9), Florida Statutes (2011). The physical examination by the EMA, were it to take place, would constitute harm not remediable on appeal because Petitioner objects to being physically examined. But the facts before us demonstrate a disagreement in medical opinions, sufficient to warrant the objected-to examination such that the JCC, in ordering the EMA, has not departed from the essential requirements of law. Any harm that might result from the EMA’s being asked to opine on facts or issues of law that are not properly within the EMA’s purview can be fully remedied on plenary appeal. Therefore, this petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED.

ROBERTS, SWANSON, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 So. 3d 932, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 3569, 2015 WL 1086137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-amcccmsi-fladistctapp-2015.