105 So. 3d 569
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Claimant sustained a compensable head/neck/right shoulder injury on June 13, 2004 while working as a patient observer.
- Dr. Meli examined Claimant on November 7, 2007 and found shoulder strain, limited neck ROM, and trapezial spasm, ordering an MRI.
- On January 8, 2008, Dr. Meli recommended physical therapy for cervical spine injury.
- Dr. Meli, December 3, 2008, indicated temporary resolution of preexisting issues and placed Claimant at MMI.
- Dr. Meli, November 16, 2009, again recommended physical therapy and maintained MCC of need for treatment.
- Claimant filed a petition for benefits on November 11, 2010 seeking PT authorization, reauthorization of Dr. Meli, and an IME; E/C denied per Dr. Meli’s December 3, 2009 opinion; Dr. Aparicio IME on December 29, 2010 favored PT and MCC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the 2009 Meli letter | Claimant argues it is unauthenticated hearsay, not a medical report. | E/C contends it falls under the medical reports provision and authentication is unnecessary. | JCC erred; document not properly authenticated or admissible. |
| Compliance with section 440.29(4) | E/C did not follow §440.29(4) procedures for admitting medical reports. | E/C did not properly deploy 440.29(4) because it was not used as case-in-chief. | Noncompliance invalidates reliance on the document. |
| Applicability of Florida Evidence Code in WC cases | Evidence rules apply; document lacks admissible foundation. | WC hearing relaxes procedure but not authentication, hearsay rules. | Admission without proper foundation and hearsay basis was error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tutor Time Child Care/Learning Centers v. Patterson, 91 So.3d 264 (Fla.1st DCA 2012) (statutory purpose to streamline admission of medical reports under §440.29(4))
- ITT/Palm Coast Utils., CIGNA v. Douglas, 696 So.2d 390 (Fla.1st DCA 1997) (doctor letters treated as inadmissible hearsay without proper foundation)
- Amos v. Gartner, Inc., 17 So.3d 829 (Fla.1st DCA 2009) (reaffirms authentication and admissibility standards under Evidence Code)
- U.S. Sugar v. Henson, 823 So.2d 104 (Fla.2002) (Evidence Code applies to workers’ compensation proceedings)
- Alford v. G. Pierce Woods Mem’l Hasp., 621 So.2d 1380 (Fla.1st DCA 1993) (treatment of medical records and admissibility in WC)
- Martin Marietta Corp. v. Roop, 566 So.2d 40 (Fla.1st DCA 1990) (limits on waiving evidence rules in WC)
- Lowe’s of Tallahassee v. Giaimo, 552 So.2d 304 (Fla.1st DCA 1989) (authentication requirement baseline for records)