Williams v. Department of Labor & Employment Security

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Williams v. Department of Labor & Employment Security

813 So. 2d 193, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 3776, 2002 WL 449051

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 25, 2002

DocketNo. 1D01-1568

StatusPublished

This text of 813 So. 2d 193 (Williams v. Department of Labor & Employment Security) 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

Williams v. Department of Labor & Employment Security, 813 So. 2d 193, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 3776, 2002 WL 449051 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

BARFIELD, J.

AFFIRMED. The judge of compensation claims (JCC) correctly construed section 440.134(6)(c)9, Florida Statutes, which requires a managed care plan to include a process allowing an injured employee to obtain one second opinion in the same specialty, but does not afford the injured employee an automatic right to a second opinion evaluation. We find that competent substantial evidence supports the JCC’s findings that the claimant failed to present any evidence suggesting an additional orthopedic evaluation would be reasonable in these circumstances, and that her mere dissatisfaction with her treating orthopedic physician’s “attitude” was insufficient to support her claim for a second opinion. We note that the claimant had previously obtained a change in orthopedic physicians under section 440.134(10)(c), Florida Statutes.

ERVIN and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

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

BARFIELD, J.

AFFIRMED. The judge of compensation claims (JCC) correctly construed section 440.134(6)(c)9, Florida Statutes, which requires a managed care plan to include a process allowing an injured employee to obtain one second opinion in the same specialty, but does not afford the injured employee an automatic right to a second opinion evaluation. We find that competent substantial evidence supports the JCC’s findings that the claimant failed to present any evidence suggesting an additional orthopedic evaluation would be reasonable in these circumstances, and that her mere dissatisfaction with her treating orthopedic physician’s “attitude” was insufficient to support her claim for a second opinion. We note that the claimant had previously obtained a change in orthopedic physicians under section 440.134(10)(c), Florida Statutes.

ERVIN and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

813 So. 2d 193, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 3776, 2002 WL 449051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-department-of-labor-employment-security-fladistctapp-2002.