Stroman v. Hackney

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stroman v. Hackney

115 So. 3d 1135, 2013 WL 3441490, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 10932

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 9, 2013

DocketNo. 1D12-3924

StatusPublished

This text of 115 So. 3d 1135 (Stroman v. Hackney) 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

Stroman v. Hackney, 115 So. 3d 1135, 2013 WL 3441490, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 10932 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying a claim for a change in treating provider made under section 440.134(10)(c), Florida Statutes (2006). Claimant also challenges the JCC’s denial of attorney’s fees and costs relative to the claim for a change in medical providers. We conclude that the JCC erred when he found Claimant had previously exercised her statutory right to a change in providers by selecting her primary care provider as permitted by section 440.134(6)(c)10. — a right which is separate and independent from the statutory right provided for in 440.134(10)(c). Because the record does not support the JCC’s finding that Claimant has already exercised her right to a change in physician under section 440.134(10)(c), we REVERSE and REMAND for the entry of an order permitting Claimant to exercise her right under this statute and awarding attorney’s fees and costs.

BENTON, RAY and MAKAR, 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 challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying a claim for a change in treating provider made under section 440.134(10)(c), Florida Statutes (2006). Claimant also challenges the JCC’s denial of attorney’s fees and costs relative to the claim for a change in medical providers. We conclude that the JCC erred when he found Claimant had previously exercised her statutory right to a change in providers by selecting her primary care provider as permitted by section 440.134(6)(c)10. — a right which is separate and independent from the statutory right provided for in 440.134(10)(c). Because the record does not support the JCC’s finding that Claimant has already exercised her right to a change in physician under section 440.134(10)(c), we REVERSE and REMAND for the entry of an order permitting Claimant to exercise her right under this statute and awarding attorney’s fees and costs.

BENTON, RAY and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 So. 3d 1135, 2013 WL 3441490, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 10932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stroman-v-hackney-fladistctapp-2013.