From the first appointment to the last, Dr. Hodor was authorized and has seen the Claimant a total of seven (7) times, from Januto April 29, 2020. He administered an injection in the right ankle and provided the Claimant with an AFO brace and an ankle support brace. He noted that the Claimant had an antalgic gait on the right. Steinlauf saw the Claimant once, on September 7, 2018. Potash last saw the Claimant on August 2, 2016. E/C authorized these medical providers as primary care physicians:.E/C accepted compensability of the workplace accident. He twisted his right ankle, lost his balance and fell onto his side. Claimant stepped into a hole with his right foot. Claimant does not consent to trying this issue at the upcoming Merit Hearing. As no such claim is presently ripe for adjudication, the Pretrial Stipulation does not include any claim for same. E/C has not denied any medical care, therefore, claimant has not had the need to file a claim for authorization of medical care. Therefore, E/C should be estopped from defending the claim for TPD by challenging the compensability of claimant’s injuries (3) E/C has interjected an issue – “the MCC of the need of any future medical treatment” – which has not, heretofore, been at issue, and is not presently at issue. (2) By virtue of the “120-Day Rule”, E/C has waived any right it may have had, whether based on the theory of “intervening trauma” or of a preexisting condition, to contest that claimant’s injuries, as determined by Kenneth Hodor, M.D., claimant’s authorized orthopedist, arose out of, and occurred within the course and scope of the claimant’s employment. Neither legally nor factually has the claimant “suffered an intervening trauma that has broken the causal chain.” In actuality, E/C’s “intervening trauma” defense is a preexisting condition defense, albeit one without a factual basis, under § 440.09(1)(b), Fla. Therefore, E/C should be estopped from defending the claim for TPD by challenging the compensability of claimant’s injuries. Hodor, thus limiting the scope of the EMA’s opinions regarding MMI, PIR, and restrictions to the Grade I ankle sprain only (3) By virtue of the “120-Day Rule”, E/C has waived any right it may have had to contest that claimant’s injuries, as determined by Kenneth Hodor, M.D., including those revealed by the Februright ankle MRI, arose out of, and occurred within the course and scope of the claimant’s employment. Accordingly, this is the only compensable injury for which there can possibly be a difference of opinion between E/C’s IME doctor and Dr. He failed to express opinions on these subjects with regard to the claimant’s many other compensable injuries, as determined by Kenneth Hodor, M.D., claimant’s authorized orthopedist, and for which E/C has been providing benefits since on or about March 26, 2019. Claimant replied to E/C’s defenses as follows (ID102):Ĭontrary to E/C’s unsubstantiated assertion, the claimant has not “reached overall MMI, with a 0% PIR, and no restrictions” (2) E/C’s IME doctor limited his MMI, PIR, and restrictions opinions to a Grade I ankle sprain.Thus, the MCC of the need of any future medical treatment or loss of earning is not the Jindustrial accident. Fernandez and the FebruMRI report, the claimant has suffered an intervening trauma that has broken the causal chain. The claimant has reached overall MMI, with a 0% PIR, and no restrictions, three months following the date of accident per the opinion of E/C IME Dr. The only claim to be heard at the Final Hearing is TPD from Mato April 21, 2020.Īll TPD due or owing.Final Hearing is scheduled for November 30, 2020.
Decipher voicemail trial trial#
440.15(4).ĬLAIMANT’S TRIAL MEMORANDUM PURSUANT TO RULE 60Q-6.116(7)ĬOMES NOW the Claimant, by and through his undersigned counsel, and files this, Claimant’s Trial Memorandum Pursuant to Rule 60Q-6.116(7): If the answer is Yes, the Claimant should be awarded Temporary Partial Disability Benefits (F.S. 440.20(4)) will preclude the Employer/Carrier from denying the compensability of a number of claimant’s injuries and medical conditions. The key issue in the case is whether Florida’s “120-Day Rule” (F.S.
This memo was written by me for an upcoming workers’ compensation trial.
0 kommentar(er)
