DIANNE McFARLANE,

Appellant,

v.

MIAMI-DADE TRANSIT 

AUTHORITY AND MIAMIDADE COUNTY RISK 

MANAGEMENT,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2080

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 11, 2017.

An appeal from an order of Judge of Compensation Claims.

Gerardo Castiello, Judge.

Date of Accident: August 6, 2009.

Bill McCabe, Longwood, and Bradley D. Asnis of Asnis, Srebnick & Kaufman, 

LLC, Sunrise, for Appellant.

Abigail Price-Williams, County Attorney, and Lynda S. Slade, Miami, for 

Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant appeals the Judge of 

Compensation Claims’ (JCC’s) denial of her claim for continued medical care with 
2

Dr. Hodor, a previously authorized medical provider. The JCC based his decision on 

a finding that Claimant acquiesced to the authorization of another provider as her 

one-time change of physician from Dr. Hodor. Because we find that the JCC 

improperly considered the E/C’s acquiescence defense, we reverse. 

Following her workplace accident on August 6, 2009, Claimant received 

authorized medical treatment from Dr. Hodor for a right wrist injury and from Dr. 

Baylis for a right shoulder injury. In 2011, Claimant requested a one-time change of 

physician from Dr. Baylis in accordance with paragraph 440.13(2)(f). Paragraph 

440.13(2)(f) provides that upon the grant of a one-time change, the originally 

authorized physician shall become deauthorized upon written notification by the 

E/C. In a timely response, the E/C authorized a change from Dr. Baylis to Dr. 

Feanny. After receiving treatment from Dr. Feanny for both the right wrist and right 

shoulder injuries, Claimant filed a petition for benefits (PFB) in 2015, which sought

authorization of continued care with Dr. Hodor. Although the claims adjuster had 

testified only months earlier that Dr. Feanny was the one-time change from Dr. 

Baylis, that Dr. Baylis was no longer authorized, and that Dr. Hodor remained 

authorized, the E/C sent a deauthorization letter to Dr. Hodor shortly after the PFB 

was filed. 

Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Q-6.113(2)(a) states, in pertinent part, 

that “all available defenses not raised in the pretrial stipulation are waived unless 
3

thereafter amended by the judge for good cause shown” and that “[a]bsent an 

agreement of the parties, in no event shall an amendment or supplement be used to 

raise a new claim or defense that could, or should have been raised when the initial 

pretrial stipulation was filed, unless permitted by the judge for good cause shown.” 

In the pretrial stipulation, the E/C asserted a defense that Claimant had previously 

requested a one-time from Dr. Hodor, who is no longer authorized, and that the 

authorized physician is Dr. Feanny, who has been treating Claimant since the onetime change. Significantly, the word “acquiescence” does not appear at all in the 

pretrial stipulation and was not mentioned by the E/C until their trial memorandum 

was filed less than a week before the final hearing. The E/C have not established 

good cause for this omission. We are unpersuaded by the E/C’s argument that the

absence of the word “acquiescence” in the pretrial stipulation is irrelevant because 

this defense was somehow implicit in the words that were used. 

We also find no merit in the E/C’s argument that they were not required to 

raise acquiescence as a defense because it is not an affirmative defense. It appears 

self-evident that acquiescence is an affirmative defense under these circumstances;

but even if we were to assume otherwise, the pretrial rule applies to all defenses.

In short, by failing to comply with the applicable pretrial rule, the E/C here 

waived any defense based on acquiescence. We therefore REVERSE and REMAND 

for entry of an order granting the claimed benefits in accordance with this opinion.
4

ROBERTS, C.J., WOLF and B.L. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.