STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS TAMPA DISTRICT OFFICE

Similar documents
STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS TAMPA DISTRICT OFFICE FINAL COMPENSATION ORDER

FINAL COMPENSATION ORDER

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGE OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS Miami District FINAL MERITS ORDER

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS MIAMI DISTRICT OFFICE FINAL COMPENSATION ORDER

petition for identification only but not as evidence and was proffered by Claimant FINAL MERITS ORDER

This matter came before me, the undersigned Judge of Compensation Claims, for a

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Margaret E. Sojourner, Judge.

was represented by Kate Albin Esq.

F:INAL COMPENSATION ORDER

However, he was unable to find an attorney who wished to undertake

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGE OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS WEST PALM BEACH DISTRICT OFFICE

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS PORT ST. LUCIE DISTRICT OFFICE

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGE OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS MIAMI-DADE COUNTY DISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS WEST PALM BEACH DISTRICT OFFICE

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS FORT LAUDERDALE DISTRICT OFFICE

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS MIAMI DISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGE OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS MIAMI-DADE COUNTY DISTRICT

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F ZOELLA SMITH, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, TPA

At the Final Hearing, the claimant sought the following benefits:

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS FT. MYERS DISTRICT OFFICE COMPENSATION ORDER

ORDER ON AWARD OF CLAIMANT'S APPELLATE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G OPINION FILED MARCH 11, 2013

CASE NO. 1D (1) Whether the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC s) apportionment findings,

FINAL COMPENSATION ORDER

Thompson, Gary v. MESA INTERIOR CONST. CO., INC.

After due notice, the above styled matter came before the undersigned Judge of

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NOS. F & F TIMMY J. HENSLEY, EMPLOYEE

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F HARTFORD UNDERWRITES INS. CO. CARRIER OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 24, 2008

OJCC No: GDAL DIA: 06/26/2017 JUDGE: Daniel A. Lewis FINAL ORDER ON ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS (FEE AMOUNT HEARING)

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 23, 2010

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G CATHERINE WILLIAMSON, Employee. BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE, INC.

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS ORLANDO DISTRICT OFFICE. Judge: W.

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F ANNA STIELER, Employee. ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING PRODUCT, Employer RESPONDENT #1

CASE INFORMATION SHEET FLORIDA LEGAL PERIODICALS, INC. P.O. Box 3370, Tallahassee, FL (904) /(800) * FAX (850)

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F DALE W. CLARK, EMPLOYEE OPINION FILED JUNE 21, 2004

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS MIAMI DISTRICT OFFICE FINAL COMPENSATION ORDER

Lee, Thomas v. Federal Express Corporation

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS GAINESVILLE DISTRICT OFFICE

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS ORLANDO DISTRICT OFFICE FINAL COMPENSATION ORDER

undersigned Judge of Compensation Claims on January 14, 2011 in Orlando, Orange County, Florida, pursuant to claims raised in a

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGE OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS Orlando District

CASE NO. 1D Walter C. Wyatt of Bradham, Benson, Lindley, Blevins, Bayliss & Wyatt, P.L.L.C., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellees.

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICE OF THE JUDGE OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS DAYTONA BEACH DISTRICT

undersigned reserved jurisdiction to adjudicate a pending Petition for Benefits filed on

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. E502382/E709020/F003389

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS SEBASTIAN /MELBOURNE DISTRICT OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 19, 2004

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS MIAMI DISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS ORLANDO DISTRICT OFFICE

CASE INFORMATION SHEET FLORIDA LEGAL PERIODICALS, INC. P.O. Box 3370, Tallahassee, FL (904) /(800) * FAX (850)

Boyd, Rosemary v. Hewlett Packard Co.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT KNOXVILLE October 10, 2000 Session

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G DAVID WILLHITE, EMPLOYEE

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F COOPER POWER SYSTEMS, INC. OPINION FILED AUGUST 22, 2006

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F FAYETTEVILLE VETERANS HOME PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER

Owens, Sheila vs. Sitters, Etc.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS SEBASTIAN/MELBOURNE DISTRICT OFFICE

FNAL COMPENSATION ORDER

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS FORT LAUDERDALE DISTRICT AMENDED FINAL MERITS ORDER

ORDER ADDRESSING THE MERITS OF A PETITION FOR BENEFITS FILED 12/17/2010

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Laura Roesch, Judge.

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS FT. LAUDERDALE DISTRICT OFFICE

Dunn, Jason v. United States Infrastructure

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G LINDA STERLING, EMPLOYEE

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION INSURANCE CARRIER OPINION FILED JULY 9, 2003

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F JEFFERY OTIS, Employee. YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC.

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F CATHY JO WILSON, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT P.L.S. & ASSOCIATES, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT

Latch, Terry v. A&A Express

Yarbrough, James v. Protective Services Co., Inc.

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G JULIET ELIZABETH MORROW, EMPLOYEE OPINION FILED JULY 3, 2018

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F HERBERT AYERS, Employee. TYSON FOODS, INC., Employer RESPONDENT #1

CASE INFORMATION SHEET FLORIDA LEGAL PERIODICALS, INC. P.O. Box 3370,, Tallahassee, FL (904) /(800) * FAX (850)

Courtesy 440Authority.com

31tt the 6upremce Court of OYjio

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F DENNIS BATES, EMPLOYEE S T & T CONSTRUCTION CO., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS FORT LAUDERDALE DISTRICT OFFICE

CASE INFORMATION SHEET FLORIDA LEGAL PERIODICALS, INC. P.O. Box 3730, Tallahassee, FL (904) / (800) * FAX (850)

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 8, 2005

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. E BOST HUMAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICE OPINION FILED JUNE 1, 2007

Amos, Harvey v. Goodman Global Group

Jackson, Michael v. Transwood

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Miller, John v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.

Frederique v Chatterjee 2013 NY Slip Op 32350(U) October 1, 2013 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /10 Judge: Arlene P. Bluth Cases posted with

DEFENDANT S CASE EVALUATION SUMMARY INTRODUCTION. Plaintiff, *** fell in the entryway of the *** on ***, allegedly injuring her shoulder and

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Beene, Marshall v. Metro Services, Inc.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G RUSSELL MARTINDALE, EMPLOYEE

Vercek, Eugene v. YRC, Inc.

Nicole v RJ Lease Mgt. Corp NY Slip Op 31987(U) September 15, 2016 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Wilma Guzman

Miller, Linda v. We Care Services/Comfort Keepers

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS ST. PETERSBURG DISTRICT OFFICE FINAL ORDER

NO. 44,080-WCA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * Versus * * * * * *

Cargile, Pamela v. HCA Physicians Service

Transcription:

STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS TAMPA DISTRICT OFFICE Katherine MacGill, Employee/Claimant, vs. PsychSoluntions Corp/Comp Options/AmTrust North America of Florida, Associated Industries Insurance Company, and AmTrust North America of Florida, Employer/Carrier/Servicing Agent. / OJCC Case No. 16-029118EDS Accident date: 8/10/2016 Judge: Mark A. Massey FINAL COMPENSATION ORDER This matter came before the undersigned Judge of Compensation Claims for a final merit hearing on 05/02/18. Claimant was present along with her attorney Robert Rivera, Esquire. Present and representing E/C was Andrew Borah, Esquire. The hearing was held to adjudicate the petition for benefits filed 10/04/17. Jurisdiction was reserved by agreement on the petition filed 05/02/18 as it has not been mediated and is not procedurally ripe for adjudication. Claimant claims she sustained a compensable injury to her right shoulder due to her work activities, based on a repetitive trauma theory. For the reasons outlined below, I find that claimant has not carried her burden of proof and find in favor of the employer and carrier. CLAIMS 1. Authorization and provision of a primary care physician. 2. Payment of attorney s fees and costs. Page 1 of 9

DEFENSES 1. Compensability of the accident and injury to the right shoulder is denied. 2. The alleged industrial accident is not the major contributing cause of the claimant s injuries/need for treatment, if any, to the right shoulder. 3. Claimant s right should condition is pre-existing/personal in nature. 4. Attorney s fees and costs are not due or owing. JUDGE S EXHIBITS 1. Petition for benefits filed 10/04/17 (D-27) 2. Response to petition filed 10/26/17 (D-28) 3. Pre-Trial Stipulation filed 01/18/18 (D-40) 4. Claimant s Trial Memorandum, for argument only (D-62) 5. E/C s Trial Memorandum, for argument only (D-59) JOINT EXHIBITS 1. Deposition of records custodian for Dr. Carvajal with attachments (D-54), for fact and historical purposes only 2. Deposition of records custodian for Dr. Naranjo with attachments (D-53), for fact and historical purposes only 3. Deposition of records custodian for Dr. Thamarajah with attachments (D-55-58), for fact and historical purposes only CLAIMANT S EXHIBITS 1. Deposition of Dr. Langone with attachments (D-50) EMPLOYER/CARRIER S EXHIBITS 1. Deposition of Dr. Sher with attachments (D-51) 2. Deposition of claimant (D-52) Page 2 of 9

FINDINGS OF FACT Claimant worked for the employer as a mental health counselor and therapist. She began working at this job in July 2015. As part of her job, claimant was required to travel to patient s homes, covering a large geographical area. Therefore, she spent a considerable amount of time (typically about half of her work day, according to her) on the road driving. She also carried with her a bag of supplies including a laptop computer, books, toys, and other implements of her work (many of her clients were children). When she arrived at the patient s home, she would lift the bag out of the car and carry it into the home, then repack it and carry it back out to the car when leaving. While driving, she would often hold her phone in one hand, to utilize the GPS function, while steering with the other hand. Claimant has a history of right shoulder problems prior to her employment with the employer herein. In 2009 she was diagnosed with chronic impingement tendonitis. In April 2009, she underwent a right shoulder acromioplasty with subacromial decompression and right open distal clavicle resection. According to claimant, her right shoulder symptoms resolved completely after the 2009 surgery, until 2015. Claimant was also involved in a motor vehicle accident in which she sustained a whiplash type injury to her neck. This apparently occurred in 2011, although the exact date is unclear. In the years following the motor vehicle accident, claimant continued to have neck pain for which she received pain management treatment including physical therapy, injections and medication. On 08/10/15, she complained to Dr. Thamarajah, her personal primary care physician, of a recurrence of neck pain. Dr. Thamarajah referred her to Dr. Naranjo for continued pain management. Page 3 of 9

Claimant saw Dr. Naranjo on 08/17/15 with complaints of neck pain with radiation to both shoulders, and a long history of progressive neck pain following the motor vehicle accident. She continued to follow up with Dr. Naranjo on 11/05/15, 01/25/16, 02/18/16, 05/12/16, and 07/18/16, at which time she was complaining of cervical pain radiating to the right shoulder and hand with associated numbness. On 04/11/16, claimant complained to Dr. Thamarajah of right shoulder pain. Dr. Thamarajah referred her to orthopedic Dr. Carvajal, who first saw the claimant on 04/21/16. Dr. Carvajal noted the history of neck pain radiating to the shoulder and hand but stated: She has now developed isolated right shoulder pain which recurs at night and also when she tries to throw a ball. There was no mention at that time of driving being an aggravating factor. Dr. Carvajal noted the previous history of shoulder surgery, and ordered medication and physical therapy. In a follow-up visit on 07/11/16, he recommended a shoulder MRI. After reviewing the results of the MRI, Dr. Carvajal recommended shoulder surgery, which was performed on 09/23/16 and included arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, chondroplasty, labral tear debridement, and subacromial decompression. Claimant saw Dr. Carvajal in follow-up on 09/26/16, 10/10/16, 11/02/16 and 12/07/16, at which time she was noted to be doing quite well with excellent range of motion and strength. Dr. Carvajal recommended home exercise and did counsel her on the arthritic changes of her shoulder as well. Claimant argues that her increased shoulder problems began shortly after starting her job with the employer herein, after several years of being asymptomatic. She attributes the current shoulder problems to the amount of driving the job required her to do, as well as the lifting and carrying of the bag she took to her appointments. Page 4 of 9

ANALYSIS Claimant is proceeding under a repetitive trauma theory, which requires proof of (1) prolonged exposure; (2) the cumulative effect of which is injury or aggravation of a pre-existing condition; and (3) exposure to a hazard greater than that to which the general public is exposed. In the alternative, the claimant must demonstrate a series of occurrences, the cumulative effect of which is injury. Festa v Teleflex, Inc., 382 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1980). Both causation and sufficient exposure to support causation must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Section 440.09(1), Fla. Stat. I find, and E/C more or less concede, that claimant meets the first prong of Festa (prolonged exposure) based on the case law. However, I find that claimant has not met her burden of proving the second prong of Festa, nor does she meet the alternative test. The only medical evidence in support of the cumulative effect of which is injury element (under either the second prong or the alternative test) is the testimony and report of Dr. Langone, which I have carefully reviewed along with the testimony and report of Dr. Sher. I find that Dr. Langone s opinion is based almost entirely on the subjective history given to him by the claimant. She s complaining of shoulder pain. She relates to her work activity. I take it on face value. (Langone deposition p.27). Q: So your understanding right now that there was a work-related injury or aggravation that s based entirely on the history that she gave you? A: Yes. (p.37) And, that history was less than accurate. For example, Dr. Langone believed the prior surgery was twenty years ago, when actually it was only six years between that surgery in 2009 and the alleged recurrence of symptoms in 2015. Dr. Langone was not able to quantify the Page 5 of 9

amount of driving claimant did, either before or after her driving territory was restricted (p.12). Most notably, Dr. Langone admitted that he had a very scant 1 or minimal amount of records. (p.15) He apparently had two or three pages from Dr. Caraval (including blood work and preop labs, p.15) and that was it. (p.22). Although he was provided with Dr. Sher s report during the deposition, he admitted that he did not have the MRI reports or films (p.27), he did not have any operative reports (p.27), and he did not have the records of Dr. Naranjo, Dr. Thamarajah, or Dr. Caraval (except the two or three pages mentioned) (p.35, 37). He further acknowledged that it would be useful, and in fact optimal (p.36), to have these records before forming any conclusive opinions. In fact, he specifically stated in his report that a review of prior medical records would be informative, and reiterated this in deposition (p.37). And, he admitted that if the records contained information differing from what the claimant told him (which they do), it could very well make a difference in his opinions. (p.22-25) It should also be noted that Dr. Langone, while arguably uttering, or at least agreeing with, the magic words of major contributing cause, when asked directly whether increased (again with no quantification) driving was the MCC, he merely stated That s a plausible mechanism of aggravation, correct. (p.11) Plausibility is not the standard; reasonable medical certainty is the standard, and Dr. Langone s testimony does not reflect this. Similarly, he merely agreed that carrying a bag with books, toys and folders could cause an aggravation, while at the same time admitting that the bag was of unknown weight. (p.20) But he also acknowledged that activities performed outside of employment (which he did not ask her about) could also cause such an aggravation. (p.25-26) Interestingly, Dr. Langone then backtracked 1 Misspelled in the transcript as scan. Page 6 of 9

and attempted to downplay the potential significance of non-work activities by stating I mean, basically she s not throwing a 90 mile an hour fastball. (p.27). This is ironic because, as noted, the first thing claimant told Dr. Carvajal is that the shoulder pain recurs at night and when she tries to throw a ball, with no mention of driving as an aggravating factor. I find that Dr. Langone s opinions are not competent substantial evidence, much less clear and convincing evidence, of causation. In contrast, I find Dr. Sher s opinions to be objective, well supported, and based on a complete history with complete records. Dr. Sher s report and testimony demonstrate beyond a doubt that he performed a through and detailed review of the many records provided to him, as well as a thorough examination of the claimant. His ultimate diagnosis of degenerative arthritis, unrelated to employment, is logical, fact-based, and consistent with the records and claimant s history. Claimant has not put forth any valid or persuasive reason to reject Dr. Sher s opinions, which I hereby accept in full over those of Dr. Langone. In further support of this, I note that Dr. Langone himself admitted that he is not a fellowship-trained shoulder specialist, and that such a specialist would be better qualified and experienced to address the causation issue here. Dr. Sher is fellowship trained in the shoulder. I also find that claimant fails to meet the element of exposure to a hazard greater than that to which the general public is exposed. Although claimant testified that she spent half and sometimes more of her workday driving, I find this is not unusual in today s society. Further, the actual number of driving hours involved per day or per week was never really established with any degree of certainty. It is also interesting to note that on 08/29/13, prior to her employment with the employer, claimant told Dr. Thamarajah that she was achy and tired after having just returned from a vacation in which she and her husband drove about 8,000 miles all around the Page 7 of 9

country in three weeks. I find claimant s testimony standing alone, or in conjunction with Dr. Langone s testimony based on her history, is not competent substantial evidence, much less clear and convincing evidence, of sufficient exposure to support causation. In sum, I find that claimant has not carried her burden of proving a compensable injury under a repetitive trauma theory. In the alternative, I find that there is no competent substantial evidence to support a claim for the specific benefit sought, which is authorization and provision of a primary care physician. There is no medical evidence or testimony -- including that of Dr. Langone, who only recommended physical therapy that authorization of a primary care physician is medically necessary. Even in compensable cases, claimant maintains the burden of proving the medical necessity of requested care. Echevarria v Luxor Investments, 159 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2015); Perez v Southeastern Freight Lines, Inc., 159 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2015). Claimant has not carried that burden here. WHEREFORE it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. The claim for authorization of a primary care physician is denied. 2. The claim for costs and attorney s fees is denied. DONE AND SERVED this 9th day of May, 2018, in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. S Mark A. Massey Judge of Compensation Claims Division of Administrative Hearings Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims Tampa District Office 6302 E. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Suite 460 Tampa, Florida 33619 (813)664-4000 www.fljcc.org Page 8 of 9

COPIES FURNISHED: Comp Options/AmTrust North America of Florida 4800 Deerwood Campus Parkway, DCC8/1 Jacksonville, FL 32246 FLWClegal@amtrustgroup.com Associated Industries Insurance Company PO Box 94574 Cleveland, OH 44101 FLWCLegal@amtrustgroup.com, AmTrust North America of Florida PO Box 94574 Cleveland, OH 44101 FLWCLegal@amtrustgroup.com, Robert M. Rivera, Attorney The Law Offices of Richard E. Zaldivar 2600 SW 3rd Avenue, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33129 rrivera@zaldivarpa.com,zaldivaresquire1@gmail.com Richard E. Zaldivar 2600 SW THIRD AVENUE SUITE 300 Miami, FL 33129 MAXZZ@BELLSOUTH.NET, ZALDIVARPA@GMAIL.COM Andrew R. Borah, Esquire Hurley, Rogner, Miller, Cox, & Waranch, P.A. 700 W. Hillsboro Blvd., Suite #2-107 Deerfield Beach, FL 33441 aborah@hrmcw.com,sfournier@hrmcw.com Page 9 of 9