Coffee & Case Law (non-CEU)

JCC Orders

JCC Medina-Shore (Miami) -Granted, in part, and denied, in part, Motion for Summary Final Order. Several Petitions were filed by the claimant requesting compensability and medical treatment for multiple body parts. The claim proceeded to a final hearing in January. As a result of the hearing, the JCC judicially dismissed two body parts. The JCC also found that compensability of another body part was ripe at the time of the hearing and not brought by the claimant. The JCC granted the E/C’s motion for summary final order dismissing with prejudice the claimant’s request for medical care for these three body parts. The JCC denied the E/C’s motion on another issue due to the claimant’s filing of a DWC-25 that created a genuine issue of material fact.  Click here to view Order

JCC Stanton (Jacksonville) –Denied E/C’s Motion for Summary Final Order. The claimant filed a PFB on 3/17/26 requesting payment of a medical bill for treatment provided on 1/29/24 and 2/12/24. The E/C argued that the claim was ripe and should have been filed before the 3/11/25 final hearing. The JCC denied the motion after the claimant filed an affidavit stating that he did not receive the bill until 2/26/26.   Click here to view Order

JCC Hedler (West Palm Beach) –Granted Motion to Enforce Stipulation. The adjuster was not available for her deposition, so the E/C attorney went on the record for the deposition and outlined which benefits would be provided to resolve pending issues. The benefits to be provided were later further outlined in emails between the E/C and claimant attorneys. The claimant’s attorney relied onEsch v. Forster, 168 So. 229 (Fla. 1936), to argue that the JCC should grant the motion to enforce the stipulations placed on the record by the E/C attorney. The JCC agreed and entered an order enforcing the stipulations. However, the JCC declined to enforce any emails as they reflected ongoing efforts to finalize details rather than stipulations.   Click here to view Order

Compensability

JCC Massey (Tampa) –Determined compensability of hypertension, awarded medical and indemnity benefits. The claimant was a Florida Highway Patrol officer who started noticing symptoms of flushed face, shaking hands, chest pain and nausea after a high-speed pursuit. He subsequently treated with his PCP and cardiologist and was diagnosed with essential hypertension. The JCC sustained the E/C’s objection to the medical opinions of the claimant’s PCP as there was no proper designation of IME. The E/C presented IME testimony of Dr. Borzak. The JCC rejected the E/C’s argument of a showing of hypertension on the pre-employment physical. Instead, the JCC accepted Dr. Borzak’s testimony that the claimant’s pre-employment physical of 2008 showed a reading of 110/82 and was marginally elevated rather than hypertensive. The E/C also argued that the hypertension was not accompanied by disability. The JCC rejected this argument and found that the records reviewed by Dr. Borzak and his testimony demonstrated that the claimant could not work while receiving treatment from his PCP for the elevated blood pressure and in the days prior to his cardiologist appointment. The JCC also determined the AWW based on the claimant’s testimony and awarded TTD for the two days that the claimant missed while treating.   Click here to view Order

JCC Jacobs (Orlando) –Determined compensability of accident. The claimant was involved in a golf cart accident. The employer sent her to a clinic for a urine drug screening and medical evaluation. The urine drug screening was negative for all substances. While at the clinic, she was asked for a blood sample as well. The claimant called her supervisor to ask if the blood sample was necessary and was told that he would find out. The claimant received a call later that afternoon asking her if she did the blood test. She agreed to go back to the clinic for the blood test. While on the way to the clinic, the claimant was terminated for violation of company policy by refusing the blood test. The E/C denied the claim and asserted that the employer is a drug-free workplace. The JCC reviewed the statute and drug policy and determined multiple deficiencies in the policy. Most significant, the JCC found that each employee was not provided with a copy of written policy. The JCC found it insufficient that the policy was available on jobsites and the intranet.  The JCC also found other insufficiencies such as failure to have a procedure to contest positive result, no provision for discussing prescription medication in advance of testing and chain of custody. Moreover, the JCC found issues with the policy language using both “drugs” and “alcohol” which created confusion about the actual test requirements. The JCC found the employer did not meet the statutory requirements for a drug-free workplace and also denied the E/C’s alternative argument for intoxication because the claimant did not refuse the test.   Click here to view Order

JCC Case (West Palm Beach) –Determined compensability of coronary artery disease and granted medical benefits.The claimant was a law enforcement officer with a clean pre-employment physical in 2006. However, he started having issues of hypertension, hyperlipidemia and hypercholesterolemia in 2011, and required medication. Over the years following, he lost a significant amount of weight. The claimant’s PCP thought the numbers were normal enough to discontinue medications. As of early 2025, the diagnoses were no longer listed on the claimant’s medical records. The claimant sustained a heart attack at home in July 2025. The E/C argued reverse presumption due to the claimant’s failure to take medication back in 2023. The parties “argued extensively” over whether the PCP’s recommended statin constituted a “prescribed course of treatment” because the doctor did not actually write a prescription. The E/C’s IME, Dr. Perloff, stated that it would be unusual for a provider to write a prescription for a patient that is not willing to take the medication. The claimant’s IME, Dr. Chernobelsky, opined that the claimant opted for the non-pharmacological route to lower his cholesterol, which appeared to have worked. The JCC accepted Dr. Chernobelsky over Dr. Perloff. The JCC also found that the refusal to take a statin was not a material departure for the specific disease for which the claimant was seeking compensability because the statin would have been prescribed for high cholesterol rather than coronary artery disease.   Click here to view Order

JCC Anderson (Orlando) –Denied claim for misrepresentation. The claimant alleged a left-knee injury and treatment was provided under the 120-day provision. The JCC found that the claimant knowingly and intentionally made false statements regarding prior left-knee injuries and complaints. The E/C presented evidence of at least three prior medical records of left-knee pain with the most recent being an emergency room report from 17 days prior to the accident. The claimant denied prior left-knee injuries and pain to all providers, including her own IME, and during her deposition. All benefits were denied.  Click here to view Order

Indemnity

JCC Arthur (Tampa) –Awarded TPD with penalties and interest, in part; denied TPD, in part.The claimant sustained a compensable neck and back injury. He received medical treatment two weeks after the accident and was assigned light-duty work restrictions at that point. The claimant continued to work for the employer after the accident until he was terminated. During the periods that the claimant had work restrictions, the JCC found that the claimant earned at least 80% of his AWW. The claimant was terminated for not completing safety videos. The JCC found the claimant’s testimony to be more credible than the employer rep and noted that it was difficult to determine the employer rep’s credibility through deposition alone while the claimant testified via deposition and live at the hearing. The JCC found that the claimant was entitled to TPD benefits from the date of termination until he was released to full-duty work. The JCC accepted the treating provider Dr. Silverstein’s deposition over the claimant’s IME, Dr. Beatty, regarding MMI date and work restrictions due to limited findings on physical exam, conservative diagnoses and treatment provided.   Click here to view Order

JCC Massey (Tampa) –Granted TPD benefits, in part; denied TPD benefits, in part; denied AWW adjustment.The claimant sustained a compensable injury and received authorized medical treatment. She was assigned modified-duty work restrictions. She continued working for the employer, but she missed some days due to symptoms from her injury. There is some dispute about whether the employer actually accommodated her restrictions, but the claimant continued working for the employer regardless until an unrelated conflict arose. The claimant got into a dispute with her direct supervisor over who should retrieve and box and whether they needed to be wearing safety gloves. The supervisor told the claimant to leave. The claimant left and did not return to work for the employer. There is some dispute about whether the claimant and employer communicated about her return to work during that time. She was terminated for job abandonment after three days. The JCC determined that there was no evidence to support the claim for any TPD/TTD benefits until she was terminated. The JCC stated that there was no medical evidence to support her self-reduction of hours due to symptoms. The JCC awarded TPD benefits for all periods from the date of termination through the present. The JCC rejected the E/C’s arguments of termination for misconduct, voluntary limitation of income and refusal to submit job search. The JCC rejected the claimant’s argument that the employer contribution for health insurance was improperly calculated leading to the need for an AWW adjustment.   Click here to view Order

JCC Anthony (Tampa) -Awarded interest on impairment income benefits, denied penalties and additional impairment income benefits. The claimant received a 3% impairment rating from the authorized doctor. The carrier received the MMI note on the day after MMI was assigned. The adjuster initiated payment five days later for the first two weeks. The adjuster then issued two more checks covering two weeks each. The JCC found that the checks were initially issued timely. However, one of the checks was stopped after it had not been cashed 120 days from issuance. The adjuster sent letters to the claimant and reached out to the claimant and claimant’s attorney to inquire about the claimant’s address and confirm that the checks had not been received, but there was no response. Instead, a PFB was filed for the impairment benefits plus penalties and interest. The impairment check was reissued after the PFB was filed. The JCC relied onPupo v. City of Hialeah, 91 So. 3d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) to determine that there was no penalty due on the late check due to conditions outside of the carrier’s control, but the E/C owed interest regardless.  Click here to view Order

Medical

JCC Clark (Ft. Myers) –Granted medical and indemnity benefits.The claimant sustained a compensable accident with injuries to multiple body parts, including the bilateral hips. The claimant sought ongoing medical treatment for the bilateral hips, which the E/C denied. The JCC found that the E/C never sent a 120-day letter and authorized medical evaluation for the bilateral hips without reservation. The JCC further rejected the E/C’s argument that they had never authorized treatment for the degeneration or arthritis. The JCC awarded TPD and continued treatment for the bilateral hips including MRIs and pain management. The JCC did reject the claimant’s request for penalties and interest on TPD already paid and stated that the claimant did not meet the burden of proof by simply pointing to the payout and failing to consider the DWC-19s that were considered in issuing payment. The JCC further stated that filing “multi-page exhibits, which contradict each other, without further explanation or corroborating evidence or testimony, is neither persuasive or sufficient.”   Click here to view Order

JCC Pitts (Orlando) –Awarded second opinion with orthopedic for surgery. The claimant sustained a compensable lumbar spine injury in 2021. She initially treated with an urgent care before treating with multiple orthopedics and pain management providers over the years, authorized and unauthorized. She was evaluated and treated for the lumbar spine, sacroiliac joint and right hip over the years. She ultimately came under the care of Dr. Johnston, who recommended right-hip arthroscopy and referred the claimant to a hip specialist. The E/C denied authorization of a hip specialist and denied all benefits related to the right-hip osteoarthritis. The E/C did not send a 120-day letter. The JCC evaluated all medical records, including ICD codes, to determine that the E/C accepted compensability of the right hip as a matter of law and awarded the second opinion for surgery.   Click here to view Order

JCC Moneyham (Tampa) –Denied continued medical care. The claimant sustained a compensable leg injury requiring emergency surgery by Dr. Odmark in October 2024. She was released three months later. She requested follow-up medical care in January 2026, and the E/C denied. The claimant obtained an IME with Dr. Walton. The E/C obtained an IME with Dr. Jester. The JCC accepted Dr. Jester’s opinion over Dr. Walton due to more definite and decisive testimony, and the JCC found that Dr. Jester was more qualified to provide an opinion. The JCC found that the claimant did not satisfy the burden of proof to support her claim for additional medical care.  Click here to view Order

Settlement

JCC Pitts (Orlando) –Granted Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement.The claimant settled her case with the assistance of her attorney and private mediator DiVeniero. The claimant testified that she did not agree to the settlement, but the JCC rejected her testimony and found that terms of the settlement were outlined in the mediation agreement that was personally signed by the claimant at her attorney’s office.   Click here to view Order

Attorney’s Fees & Costs

JCC Anthony (Tampa) –Awarded costs to E/C. The claimant dismissed three of four PFBs, and the JCC determined the E/C to be the prevailing party. The claimant objected to unreasonable costs of deposition transcripts ($965 and $630) and argued that the transcripts typically cost $4-$6 per page. The E/C agreed to reduce the costs to $5 per page. The JCC awarded all other costs sought for a total of $744.55.   Click here to view Order

JCC Weiss (Ft. Myers) –Awarded costs to E/C. The claimant filed two PFBs and dismissed both without receiving any benefits. The JCC awarded taxable costs to the E/C of $4,529.51, overruling the claimant’s objections to an unnecessary deposition interpreter and late cancellation fee charged for a doctor deposition.   Click here to view Order

Please feel free to contact Tim Stanton (tstanton@hrlawflorida.com) with questions or comments on any of the listed cases. For appellate case questions, contact Rogers Turner (rturner@hrlawflorida.com). For the week ofAugust 10, 2026the case author isCatlin Golden.