____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Filing # 11298443 Electronically Filed 03/13/2014 12:30:18 PM
RECEIVED, 3/13/2014 12:33:42, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
AMABLE J. MOYA,
Petitioner/Claimant, CASE NO.: SC14-451
vs. Lower Tribunals: First DCA Case No. 1D13-1334
TRUCKS AND PARTS OF TAMPA, INC., Office of Judges of Compensation and AMERITRUST INSURANCE Claims Case No. 06-022730DEJ CORPORATION,
Respondents/Employer/Carrier. ________________________________/
PETITIONERS JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
ON REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL,
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
BRADLEY G. SMITH SUSAN W. FOX RICHARD W. ERVIN III Florida Bar No. 70386 Florida Bar No. 241547 Florida Bar No. 22964 SMITH, FEDDELER, FOX & LOQUASTO, P.A. FOX & LOQUASTO, P.A. & SMITH, P.A. 122 East Colonial Avenue 1201 Hays Street, Suite 100 P.O. Drawer 1089 Suite 100 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Lakeland, FL 33802 Orlando, FL 32801 Ph: (850) 425-1333 Ph: (863) 688-7766 Ph: (407) 802-2858 Fax: (850) 425-3020 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
&[email protected]
Attorneys for Petitioner/Claimant
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
INTRODUCTION AND JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
ARGUMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
I. The First Districts decision affirming the summary final order is in express and direct conflict with decisions of this court and other district courts of appeal requiring that summary judgment be denied if the possibility of a material issue of fact exists.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
II. The First Districts decision is also in apparent conflict with those same decisions because the fair implication of Moya is that a different standard applies to summary final orders.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
III. Why this court should grant review.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
CERTIFICATE OF TYPEFACE COMPLIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Arnau v. Winn Dixie Stores, 105 So. 3d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Green v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 626 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Hardee v. State, 534 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Hilton v. South Carolina Public Railways Commission, 502 U.S. 197 (1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6, 8, 9
Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Moya v. Trucks & Parts of Tampa, Inc., 130 So. 3d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4, 8, 9
Nard, Inc. v. DeVito Contracting & Supply, Inc., 769 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Thomas v. Eckerd Drugs, 987 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Tracz, 799 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So. 2d (Fla. 1977).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 6, 8, 9
Arnau v. Winn Dixie Stores,
ii
105 So. 3d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Green v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 626 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Hardee v. State, 534 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 10
Hilton v. South Carolina Public Railways Commission, 502 U.S. 197 (1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 6, 9, 10
Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Moya v. Trucks & Parts of Tampa, Inc., 130 So. 3d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4, 8-10
Nard, Inc. v. DeVito Contracting & Supply, Inc., 769 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Thomas v. Eckerd Drugs, 987 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Tracz, 799 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So. 2d (Fla. 1977).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 6, 9, 10
iii
RULES
Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Q-6.120(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.210(a)(2).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
OTHER
Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Operation and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida,
29 Nova L. Rev. 520 (Spring 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
iv
INTRODUCTION AND JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Petitioner/claimant, Amable Moya, seeks review of Moya v. Trucks & Parts of
Tampa, Inc., 130 So. 3d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Case No. 1D13-1334) (slip
opinion in appendix), which affirmed a summary final order in this workers
compensation case. Review is sought based on express and direct, as well as apparent
conflict with prior decisions of this court and other district courts of appeal relating
to the summary judgment standard.
This court has discretionary jurisdiction over appellate decisions that expressly
and directly conflict with a decision of the supreme court or another district court on
the same point of law. See Art. V, 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. App. P.
9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Mr. Moya was injured while working as a dismantler in the employers salvage
department, taking apart and removing equipment from trucks, and he filed a petition
for benefits (PFB) seeking medical treatment based on a repetitive trauma injury. Slip
op. at 2. In a January 2009 order, the judge of compensation claims (JCC) denied that
PFB based upon findings that Moya suffered from preexisting cervical and shoulder
problems, as well as carpal tunnel syndrome, and that his work activities caused only
temporary aggravations of his cervical and shoulder conditions and a flare-up of his
bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Id. The JCC found that Moya had reached
1
maximum medical improvement (MMI) in October 2006 for the aggravations of his
cervical and shoulder conditions and that no further treatment was necessary as to
them. Id. Nevertheless, the JCC approved continuing treatment for the bilateral
carpal tunnel syndrome, which was not at MMI, and Moya continued to receive care
from Dr. Aird, the authorized treating physician. Id.
In 2012, Mr. Moya filed a new PFB seeking authorization/set-up of an appt.
for an MRI of the right shoulder pursuant to the attached recommendation from Dr.
Aird the authorized physician. Id. Attached to the PFB was a 9/7/12 office note by
Aird stating: Amable has been experiencing pain in both wrists and numbness of
both hands. He also complains of pain in both shoulders worse in the right. Airds
plan was to schedule Moya for an MRI of the right shoulder and will be seen again
for follow-up care in one month. Id. at 2-3.
The employer/carrier (E/C) denied the MRI, saying: [T]he JCC ruled in her
Order of 1/30/09 that the injured employee had reached MMI with regard to his
shoulder complaints and that no further treatment was needed. Dr. Aird is only
authorized to treat injured employees bilateral carpal tunnel complaints. Id. at 3.
There
