Locker v. United Pharmaceutical Group, Inc., 46 So. 3d 1126

Claimant filed a petition for benefits (PFB) seeking authorization for continued treatment for her right shoulder.
Dr. Bayliss prescribed treatment that was attached to the PFB.
Dr. Bayliss had previously been authorized and was not de-authorized by the Employer/Carrier (E/C).
Employer/Carrier moved to dismiss the PFB based on an EMA opinion from an earlier proceeding in this matter.
JCC granted the dismissal, relying on extra-record evidence and the EMA finding that the shoulder condition was not ripe for award.
The reviewing court treats the dismissal as a de novo question of law; the four-corners rule governs whether the PFB states a claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
RiPe and entitlement of the PFB	Locker: PFB seeks authorized, ongoing treatment; benefits are ripe, due, and owing.	E/C: relies on prior EMA ruling; issues not challenged previously cannot be relitigated.	Reversed; PFB alleged ripe, due, and owing benefits.
Reliance on extra-record evidence	Locker: JCC must decide within the four corners of the PFB and attached medicals.	E/C: prior EMA evidence helps resolve whether benefits are due.	Remanded; trial court erred by considering non-pleaded, extra-record evidence.

Gilbreth v. Genesis Eldercare, 821 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (de novo review for legal conclusions on motions to dismiss)
Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Ins. Co., 819 So.2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (standard for reviewing dismissal rulings; accept allegations as true)
Chatham Mfg., Corp. v. Cates, 969 So.2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (four-corners rule; cannot rely on matters outside the complaint)
Brewer v. Clerk of Circuit Court, Gadsden County, 720 So.2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action; de novo review)
Thomas v. Eckerd Drugs, 987 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (uses summary-judgment-like framework in absence of governing WC precedent)