Palm Springs General Hosp. v. Cabrera

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding whether to appoint EMA is not within discretion of JCC
• indicating that, while the judge has an independent duty to appoint an expert medical advisor when the evidence calls for it, failure to do so does not constitute fundamental error, and may not be raised for the first time on appeal
• holding whether to appoint EMA is not within JCC’s discretion
• “The requirements of section 440.13(9)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), are mandatory and binding on the judge of compensation claims.”
• § 440.13(9)(c) is mandatory; EMA should have been appointed where there was a dispute over whether the claimant's injuries resulted from his accident at work or due to a preexisting condition
• “The statutory language provides no support for the view that the statute is directory only, or that evaluation by expert medical advisors is to be left to the discretion of the judges of compensation claims.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).