Admissibility of Expert Medical Adviser (EMA) Opinions in Workers Compensation Proceedings

September 15, 2025

On September 3, 2025, the First District Court of Appeal of Florida, in Sedgwick Claims Management Services v. Thompson, considered for the first time whether EMA opinions and reports are subject to the standard that govern the admissibility of expert testimony in legal proceedings.

In a WC case, an employer/carrier (E/C) sought to exclude the testimony of an EMA arguing that it failed to satisfy the Daubert standard—which provides the legal framework governing the admissibility of expert testimony and is codified in Florida statute 90.702. The judge of compensation claims (JCC), after applying Daubert, determined that the EMA's testimony met the required threshold and admitted it into evidence.

On appeal, the appellate court reviewed Florida statute 440.25, which states that an EMA's report or testimony "shall be admitted into evidence in a proceeding." The court found this language to be clear and unambiguous, leaving no discretion to the JCC regarding admissibility of an EMA's report or testimony. Accordingly, the court held that the JCC erred by applying Daubert to the EMA's testimony. Nevertheless, the court deemed the error harmless as the testimony was ultimately admitted and considered by the JCC in rendering its decision.

Tolling the Statute of Limitations After Voluntarily Dismissing a Petition for Benefits (PFB)

On September 3, 2025, the First District Court of Appeal of Florida, in Murphy v. Polk County Board of County Commissioners, ruled that the statute of limitation related to an employee's initial PFB is not tolled where the employee voluntarily dismissed the PFB before adjudication, but asserts that a demand for attorney fees remains a pending issue.

In January 2017, an employee filed a PFB for an injury that occurred the prior year. The employee subsequently voluntarily dismissed the petition but asserted that the amount of attorney fees and costs remained a pending issue. More than two years after the initial injury, the employee filed additional PFBs, which the employer contended were barred by the two-year statute of limitations tied to the initial injury.

In reviewing the case, the court recognized that when multiple PFBs are filed for the same accident date, the statute of limitation is tolled as long as at least one petition remains pending between the filing of the first petition and the hearing on the last petition.

The court found that the statute of limitation did not toll because the employee filed the subsequent petitions after the first petition was dismissed and the two-year statute of limitations had run out.

Moreover, the court reasoned that the employee's demand for attorney fees was derivative of, or collateral to, the successful prosecution of a PFB. Once the employee voluntarily dismissed the first PBF, there would not be a resolution that would give rise to an entitlement for attorney fees. Therefore, the attorney fees demand by itself could not serve as a stand-alone basis to deem the petition pending for tolling purposes.