Case Name: Charles GRIFFIN, deceased, By and Through Carol E. GRIFFIN, personal representative of the estate of Charles Griffin, Appellant, v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT and Ward North America, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-09-04
Citations: 795 So. 2d 155
Docket Number: No. 1D00-2840
Parties: Charles GRIFFIN, deceased, By and Through Carol E. GRIFFIN, personal representative of the estate of Charles Griffin, Appellant, v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT and Ward North America, Appellees.
Judges: POLSTON, J., concurs, ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 795
Pages: 155–158

Head Matter:
Charles GRIFFIN, deceased, By and Through Carol E. GRIFFIN, personal representative of the estate of Charles Griffin, Appellant, v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT and Ward North America, Appellees.
No. 1D00-2840.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Sept. 4, 2001.
Sylvan A. Wells of Sylvan A. Wells, P. A.. Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Alan J. Landerman of Parker, Lander-man & Parker, P.A., Orlando, for Appel-lees.
David C. Hawkins, Senior Attorney, Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Tallahassee, for Amicus Curiae, Division of Workers’ Compensation.

Opinion:
KAHN, J.
In this workers' compensation case, appellant argues that the judge of compensation claims (JCC) should not have allowed into evidence the testimony and opinions of Dr. Daniel Hal Silcox, III. The employer/carrier (E/C) had selected Dr. Silcox, who is not licensed in Florida, to perform an independent medical examination (IME). Appellant timely objected to Dr. Silcox's competence to render an opinion as an IME physician. See Clairson Int'l v. Rose, 718 So.2d 210, 212-13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). In the course of considering this matter, we issued an order requiring the Division of Workers' Compensation (Division) to file a brief addressing the question of whether Dr. Silcox could properly serve as an IME physician. The Division filed a brief supporting the JCC's decision. Because the JCC did not err in admitting Dr. Silcox's testimony, we affirm.
Section 440.13(l)(k), Florida Statutes (1999), defines "independent medical examination" as "an objective evaluation of the injured employee's medical condition, including, but not limited to, impairment or work status, performed by a physician or an expert medical advisor at the request of a party, a judge of compensation claims, or the division to assist in the resolution of a dispute arising under this chapter." (emphasis added). Section 440.13(l)(j), Florida Statutes (1999), defines "independent medical examiner" as "a physician selected by either an employee or a carrier to render one or more independent medical examinations in connection with a dispute arising under this chapter." (emphasis added). Finally, section 440.13(l)(r), Florida Statutes (1999), defines "physician" or "doctor":
"Physician" or "doctor" means a physician licensed under chapter 4,58, an osteopathic physician licensed under chapter 459, a chiropractic physician licensed under chapter 460, a podiatric physician licensed under chapter 461, an optometrist licensed under chapter 463, or a dentist licensed under chapter 466, each of whom must be certified by the division as a health care provider.
(emphasis added). Thus, as appellant asserts, these statutes require that an IME physician be licensed under chapter 458 and certified by the Division as a "health care provider."
It is undisputed that Dr. Silcox is not licensed under chapter 458. We conclude, however, that Dr. Silcox is exempt from the licensing provisions in chapter 458 because he is licensed in Georgia and, in performing the IME, he acted within the scope of his practice. See § 458.303(l)(a), (b), Fla. Stat. (1999) (excluding from provisions of chapter 458 "[o]ther duly licensed health care practitioners acting within their scope of practice authorized by statute" and "[a]ny physician lawfully licensed in another state or territory or foreign country, when meeting duly licensed physicians of this state in consultation"). We also conclude, as argued by the E/C and the Division, that Dr. Silcox need not be certified by the Division because, in performing the IME, he was providing medical services outside the State of Florida. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 38F-53.002(3)(d) (providing that "[hjealth care providers of medical services rendered outside the State of Florida" are not required to be certified).
AFFIRMED.
POLSTON, J., concurs, ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.