Doctor’s Late Change in Opinion Warrants Continuance for Dunkin Donuts

Case File

A late-in-the game shift in a doctor's opinion was beyond an employer's control, and thus a continuance was in order. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the case.

Case

Miami Donuts Payroll v. Villarreal, No. 1D2023-0789 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 11/06/24).

What Happened

A cashier for Dunkin Donuts was injured by an electrical shock she received while plugging in a cash register. She underwent treatment and was determined to have reached maximum medical improvement. She continued treatment and reported worsening symptoms nearly two years after the accident. These symptoms included balance issues, difficulty walking, weakness, pain, and bladder issues.

Workers' Comp 101: Neurofibromatosis type 1 is also known as von Recklinghausen disease.

Later, she also reported difficulty eating and the appearance of bumps on her neck. Eventually, a doctor diagnosed her with neurofibromatosis type I, which had caused tumors along her cervical spine, one of which was severely compressing her spinal cord. She underwent surgery and responded well to it, but she continued to experience symptoms.

The cashier sought benefits, and her treating physician changed his previous opinion and opined that it was the cashier's work accident that caused her to begin to manifest neurological issues, prompting Dunkin Donuts to request a continuance of the final hearing. According to Dunkin Donuts, a continuance was warranted due to the physician's unforeseen change of opinion.

The Judge of Compensation Claims denied the motion, concluding that the reasons for the request did not arise from circumstances beyond Dunkin Donuts' control. The JCC held the final hearing and accepted the physician's opinion that the work accident was the major contributing cause of the cashier's condition and need for treatment, and he awarded the cashier the requested benefits.

Dunkin Donuts appealed.

Rule of Law

Under Fla. Stat. 440.25(4)(b), continuances may be granted only if the requesting party demonstrates to the JCC that the reason for requesting the continuance arises from circumstances beyond the party's control.

What the Court Said

The court overturned the JCC's decision, finding that it was not reasonable to conclude that the circumstances necessitating Dunkin Donuts' request for a continuance were within their control.

"This is particularly so considering that [the physician] could not even recall when the change occurred, meaning that, had [Dunkin Donuts] deposed the doctor prior to when his opinion was changed, the change ostensibly would not have been discovered," the court wrote. "Even with [the physician's] change in opinion weeks before the final hearing, [Dunkin Donuts] did successfully obtain an independent medical examiner, but that examination failed to occur through no fault of [Dunkin Donuts]."

As a result, the court reversed the JCC's denial of Dunkin Donuts' motion to continue and vacated the benefits award in the final order.

Takeaway

Under Florida law, circumstances necessitating continuance of a final hearing may include a doctor's changing opinions late in the game.

Share This Article: