Vanite Edouard v. Florida Panthers Holdings

The claimant filed a Petition for Benefits (PFB), requesting treatment by Dr. Eduardo Gomez, an orthopedist. The E/C (Florida Panthers Holdings) filed a response to her request, scheduling an appointment.
The claimant pursued a claim of adjudication, wanting her orthopedic care and evaluation to be covered by the E/C.
The Claimant objected to the E/C’s Response to PFB on grounds of hearsay and relevance which the Judge overruled because the objection was raised too late for the E/C to take any corrective action and Rule 9.180(f)(1) requires the E/C to file a response to PFB.
Also, following the court decision in Marin v. Aaron’s Rent to Own, this claim was overturned. “Parties are encouraged to enter into stipulations to limit the issues for consideration-“ The client did not object until five months later, not giving the E/C time to take corrective action.
The claimant also objected that she was seeking an order for the E/C to set appointments with her doctor. This was already decided in the pretrial stipulation. The E/C was also on record for setting up an appointment for the claimant, making the Claimant’s argument moot.

Order to compel E/C to set appointments for treatment DENIED; Order to compel E/C to authorize Dr. Gomez as claimant’s doctor DENIED; Claim for attorney fees DENIED. Per Curiam Affirmed by the First DCA.

 

Source: The 440 Authority

Leave a Reply