§ 440.13(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009). A “dispute” was read “to mean a legal dispute cognizable under the Florida Worker’s [sic] Compensation Law.” Lehoullier, 43 So.3d at 836. The Lehoullier court concluded there was no “dispute” between the parties because Claimant had not requested any benefit or medical treatment that the E/C declined to provide. Contrary to the E/C’s argument, it did not demonstrate a dispute by expressing concern over Claimant’s progress with the physician it authorized to treat Claimant’s injuries. To create a dispute concerning medical benefits, an E/C is required to deny a claimant’s request for medical benefits. Simply expressing unilateral speculative concerns over a claimant’s progress with an authorized physician is insufficient. See Zabik, 911 So.2d at 859 (<HOLDING>). Id. (emphasis added). Here, the relevant
holding that a claimants failure to lose weight does not constitute a refusal to follow the treatment holding ecs speculative but unrealized concern over claimants psychiatric condition insufficient to constitute dispute warranting ime holding that bare psychiatric expert opinion of potential danger to others insufficient to support commitment holding that a medical experts speculative testimony was an insufficient basis for a wcjs finding of fact holding that an unrealized risk of future adverse action even if formalized is too ephemeral to constitute an adverse employment action