         FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                _____________________________

                        No. 1D16-2129
                _____________________________

MARLENE ALTEMAR,

    Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

    v.

LIFESPACE COMMUNITIES, INC.,
d/b/a Abbey Delray South,
SENTRY CLAIMS SERVICES and
SENTRY CASUALTY COMPANY,

    Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
                _____________________________


On appeal from the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims.
Timothy M. Basquill, Judge.

Dates of Accident: December 26, 2011 and July 12, 2013.

                          July 9, 2018

PER CURIAM.

     Claimant challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation
Claims (JCC), and the Employer/Carrier (E/C) on cross-appeal
challenges another aspect of the order. We find that the JCC
accorded a presumption of correctness to the expert medical
advisor (EMA) with regard to the Claimant’s need for attendant
care, and that this presumption was inappropriate because the
evidence does not demonstrate a sufficient disagreement in the
opinions of the health care providers on that ground. See
§ 440.13(9)(c), Fla. Stat. (2013); Guerra v. C.A. Lindman, Inc.,
146 So. 3d 527, 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (reversing order
appointing EMA because there was no disagreement in the
opinions of the health care providers, in that the opinions of some
of the doctors were stale). The E/C’s independent medical
examiner did not render a definitive opinion as to whether
attendant care benefits were medically necessary at the time of
the hearing, or whether the need for attendant care was caused
by the compensable accident. As such, the JCC should have
considered the EMA’s testimony regarding Claimant’s need for
attendant care without the presumption of correctness ordinarily
granted to EMA opinions. See Lowe’s Home Ctrs., Inc. v.
Beekman, 187 So. 3d 318, 319-20 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (holding
that unsolicited opinions from EMA are treated as any other
expert opinion, and not accorded a presumption of correctness).

     We reject all other issues on appeal, including the E/C’s
cross-appeal.

     AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for
further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

KELSEY, WINOKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

                 _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________


Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, for
Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

William H. Rogner of Hurley, Rogner, Miller, Cox & Waranch,
P.A., Winter Park, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.




                                2
