IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOE GUERRA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D13-5988
C.A. LINDMAN, INC. and
ARGONAUT INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Appellees.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed July 21, 2014.
An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.
Daniel A. Lewis, Judge.
Date of Accident: August 31, 2010.
Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.
Brian C. Dowling of the Workers’ Compensation Trial Group, P.A., Orlando, for
Appellees.
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant appeals an order of the Judge
of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying Claimant’s petition for benefits including,
relevant to this appeal, a claim for cervical surgery or, in the alternative, cervical
facet injections. We reverse because the JCC erroneously appointed and relied on
an expert medical advisor (EMA).
Claimant suffered a compensable accident on August 31, 2010, and was
diagnosed with a C5-6 herniated disk, resulting in the authorization of orthopedic
spine specialist Dr. Schechter. Dr. Schechter did not think Claimant was a
candidate for surgery. Claimant obtained a “one-time change” of physician, as he
was entitled to do under the Workers’ Compensation Law, and orthopedic surgeon
Dr. Greenberg was appointed. Dr. Greenberg diagnosed disk herniations at C3-4
and C5-6, and recommended a partial discectomy (surgery). Claimant then filed a
petition for benefits seeking that surgery. In response, the Employer/Carrier (E/C)
sought appointment of an expert medical advisor (EMA) to resolve the
disagreement in medical opinions regarding Claimant’s need for the partial
discectomy recommended by Dr. Greenberg.
Neurosurgeon Dr. Pagan was appointed to serve as an EMA, and he opined
Claimant was not then a surgical candidate; he later testified that if Claimant’s
condition worsened, surgery may be appropriate. After Dr. Pagan rendered his
EMA report in June 2011, Claimant withdrew his petition, and proceeded with
conservative care. Because Dr. Greenberg declined to see Claimant given the
situation, the E/C authorized orthopedic surgeon Dr. Montesano. Eventually Dr.
Montesano opined that Claimant’s condition was getting progressively worse. Dr.
2
Montesano opined that Claimant requires a C5-6 anterior cervical discectomy and
fusion “as soon as possible because he is developing nerve damage or neurological
deficit,” that if the weakness “continues to get worse it may become irreversible,”
and that if surgery is not authorized, Claimant should have cervical facet
injections.
Based on Dr. Montesano’s opinion, Claimant filed a new petition for
benefits seeking the treatment recommended by Dr. Montesano. In defending the
new claim, the E/C deposed Drs. Schechter and Pagan again. Both indicated that
their opinions had not changed, but explained that they had not seen Claimant or
reviewed any records past May 2011. Notably, Dr. Schechter expressly declined to
opine on Claimant’s condition in 2012 or June 2013 for those reasons. Neither
doctor expressed any disagreement with the medical opinions of Dr. Montesano
that served as the foundation for the pending petition for surgery, nor was either
doctor asked to address Dr. Montesano’s opinions.
During the hearing on the new petition for benefits, the JCC perceived a
possible dispute in the medical opinions relating to Claimant’s need for cervical
surgery, and raised the question of whether an EMA should be appointed. Both
parties opposed the appointment of an EMA with respect to the new petition for
benefits. Claimant argued (1) there was no disagreement in the medical opinions
because the opinions of Drs. Schechter and Pagan were two years old (“stale”) and
3
(2) Dr. Montesano’s opinion that Claimant’s condition had worsened and now
required surgery was uncontroverted. The E/C argued that the question of whether
Claimant requires surgery had already been addressed by Dr. Pagan, the EMA
appointed to resolve the disagreement in medical opinion regarding the prior
petition for benefits. Notwithstanding the parties’ objections to the appointment of
an EMA, the JCC, without identifying a specific disagreement in the medical
opinions, appointed an EMA, neurosurgeon Dr. Theofilos. The JCC charged the
EMA with answering three questions, including “[w]hether the anterior cervical
discectomy and fusion surgery as recommended by Dr. Montesano is reasonable
and medically necessary for the claimant.” The order appointing Dr. Theofilos as
EMA was not challenged by appeal or petition for certiorari review. *
Dr. Theofilos opined that surgery was not medically necessary “due to the
numerous Waddell’s signs he is exhibiting, [and] his lack of anatomic findings on
examination that would correlate with a C5-6 disc pathology.” Claimant moved to
strike the testimony from Dr. Theofilos, and objected to admission of Dr.
Theofilos’s report into evidence. The JCC denied the motion and overruled the
objection. The JCC relied on Dr. Theofilos’s opinions and, by order entered June
24, 2013, denied Claimant’s petition for benefits. This was error.
*
An interlocutory order appointing an EMA may be reviewed on plenary appeal.
See Taylor v. TGI Friday’s, Inc., 16 So. 3d 312, 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Hence,
there is no merit to the E/C’s argument that Claimant waived the right to contest
the appointment of an EMA by waiting for the entry of a final order.
4
Simply put, the JCC erred in failing to recognize that the legal dispute before
him was Claimant’s current need for surgery pursuant to Dr. Montesano’s
recommendation, based on Dr. Montesano’s uncontroverted opinion that
Claimant’s medical condition was materially worse than before. The E/C had an
opportunity to counter this uncontroverted testimony in order to demonstrate some
level of disagreement in medical opinions, but made the strategic decision to rely
on Drs. Schechter and Pagan even though, by their own admission, these
physicians were unaware of evidence regarding a worsening in Claimant’s
condition. Because the opinions of Drs. Schechter and Pagan do not constitute
evidence of a “disagreement in the opinions of the health care providers” regarding
the legal issue in dispute, i.e., Claimant’s current need for discectomy and fusion
given the unrefuted worsening of his injury, the JCC erred in appointing an EMA.
See § 440.13(9)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010).
REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of an order, in light of this opinion,
based on the evidence already before the JCC with the exception of evidence from
Dr. Theofilos.
THOMAS, ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
5