Case Name: Kathleen R. MACK, Appellant, v. WESTMINSTER SUNCOAST MANOR, Travelers Insurance, and C.L. Claims, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-05-08
Citations: 929 So. 2d 610
Docket Number: No. 1D05-1776
Parties: Kathleen R. MACK, Appellant, v. WESTMINSTER SUNCOAST MANOR, Travelers Insurance, and C.L. Claims, Appellees.
Judges: WOLF and DAVIS, JJ., concur; ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 929
Pages: 610–612

Head Matter:
Kathleen R. MACK, Appellant, v. WESTMINSTER SUNCOAST MANOR, Travelers Insurance, and C.L. Claims, Appellees.
No. 1D05-1776.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
May 8, 2006.
Joey D. Oquist, St. Petersburg, and Bill McCabe of Shepherd, McCabe & Cooley, Longwood, for Appellant.
Thomas A. Moore and Nicole Florentino of Moore, Peterson & Zeitler, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the dismissal of the claimant's petitions for benefits. Because the claimant had exhausted the grievance process under her managed care arrangement (MCA), the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) had jurisdiction over the claimant's petitions. However, the resolution of the petitions continued to be governed by the MCA. See § 440.134(16), Fla. Stat. (2003). The employer/carrier (e/c) has not denied the treatment requested by the claimant. Rather, the e/c has only dictated which provider will provide the treatment. Under the terms of the MCA, the e/c has sole authority to select a specialist and although the e/c may negotiate with the claimant on the matter, the e/c is not required to do so. Therefore, the JCC properly dismissed the claimant's petitions because the e/c has acted in compliance with the terms of the MCA.
AFFIRMED.
WOLF and DAVIS, JJ., concur; ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.