DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS, INC. and TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, v. FRANCISCO SOTO FUERTE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS, INC., and TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellants, CASE NO. 1D10-5499 v. FRANCISCO SOTO FUERTE, Appellee. _____________________________/ Opinion filed February 28, 2011. An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Nolan S. Winn, Judge. Date of Accident: November 20, 2009. R.G. McCormick, Jr., of the Bleakley Law Firm, Tampa, for Appellants. Jane-Robin Wender of Jane-Robin Wender, P.A., Delray Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. In this workers compensation case, Claimant requested an alternate primary care provider (PCP) under the parties managed care arrangement (MCA), but was dissatisfied when the Employer/Carrier (E/C) agreed to authorize one of only three PCPs whose names it provided Claimant. Claimant then filed a petition for benefits seeking to choose a PCP from any of the multiple PCPs participating in the provider network. The E/C now appeals from the order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) awarding authorization of a PCP from among the provider network and entitlement to attorney s fees and costs for the prosecution of that benefit. Because the question presented has been resolved by Mack v. Westminster Suncoast Manor, 929 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), we reverse the order. Specifically, in both cases, although the JCC had jurisdiction over the petition for benefits because the claimant exhausted the grievance procedure, the terms of the MCA govern resolution of the petition. Here, as in Mack, because the E/C did not deny treatment but only limited the claimant s choice of provider in the manner prescribed by the applicable MCA, Claimant s petition should have been dismissed. REVERSED. ROBERTS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., CONCUR. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
