TALLAHASSEE -- A three-judge panel for Florida's First District Court of Appeal determined that a woman’s privacy rights weren’t infringed upon when a lawyer met with her doctor about her workers’ compensation claims.
Sharon Varricchio filed an appeal after she was denied workers compensation for temporary disability benefits. The three-judge panel, consisting of Justice M. Kemmerly Thomas, Chief Justice Brad L. Thomas and Justice Lori S. Rowe affirmed the ruling. At the same time, it confronted “retroactive assignment of maximum medical improvement (MMI) and the claim that section 440.13(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2013), allowing ex parte conferences, violates the privacy clause of the Florida Constitution,” the court added.
For starters, the appeals court said, “We acknowledge that estoppel may be a viable bar to retroactive assignment of MMI or work restrictions under certain facts. However, as the claimant here did not satisfy the required elements of estoppel or demonstrate supporting facts, her arguments fail.”
Florida First District Court of Appeal Judge M. Kemmerly Thomas
| 1dca.org
As for the argument that her privacy was violated when an E/C lawyer met with her physician without her presence or knowledge, the appeals court said that she wasn’t owed any “legitimate expectation of privacy” as it was a discussion about her ability to work, or lack thereof. Plus, the plaintiff failed to present an injury she suffered, the court ruled.
Varricchio’s legal issues started after she hurt her back while moving boxes. A physician, a Dr. Weidenbaum operated on her, and put in her report for the plaintiff to follow up within two weeks--which the plaintiff denied. She didn’t return to the doctor for almost a year, the suit says.
During that visit, Varricchio said she didn’t feel any more pain until two weeks before she came back to the office. While the physician said she completed the MMI, she didn’t provide the actual date. Court documents say Varricchio had more surgery and came back for a follow-up visit but said she wasn’t feeling any better.
She went back to the office in November 2016 after suffering more pain. Varricchio ultimately received a 5 percent permanent impairment rating but that didn’t include any work restrictions (she previously had light duty restrictions). The E/C began paying for permanent impairment benefits. Varricchio then asked for temporary total disability and/or temporary partial disability, which the E/C denied and the appeals court affirmed.