GOODYEAR SERVICE STORE AND THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
DAVID STANLEY ROCKEY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the portion of the order requiring the employer/carrier to pay for future medical services was improper because it did not include statutory time limitations.
[1] An employer/carrier may be ordered to pay 50% permanent partial disability benefits when competent, substantial evidence supports such a finding.
[2] An order requiring an employer/carrier to furnish future medical services is improper when the issue of future medical services was not before the Deputy Commissioner.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis workmen's compensation appeal involved issues regarding permanent partial disability benefits and future medical care. The Deputy Commissioner or…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Time Limits cases and more on FLexlaw
[*817] SHIVERS, Judge.
This workmen’s compensation appeal presents two issues on appeal and one issue on cross-appeal. We strike the portion of the order requiring employer/carrier to pay future medical services, but otherwise affirm.
The employer/claimant raises the following issues:
I. WHETHER THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ERRED IN ORDERING THE EMPLOYER/CARRIER TO PAY TO THE CLAIMANT 50% PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY BENEFITS.
II. WHETHER THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ERRED IN ORDERING THE EMPLOYER/CARRIER TO FURNISH TO THE CLAIMANT SUCH MEDICAL CARE AND ATTENTION AS THE NATURE OF HIS RECOVERY MIGHT REQUIRE WHEN THIS WAS NOT AN ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED AT THE FINAL HEARING.
Claimant presents the following issue on cross-appeal:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ERRED IN FAILING TO FIND THAT CLAIMANT WAS PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED AS A RESULT OF THE ACCIDENT OCCURRING ON 8 MAY 1976.
After carefully reviewing the record on appeal, including the surveillance film introduced by employer/carrier, we find competent, substantial evidence to support the finding that claimant is entitled to 50% permanent partial disability benefits. The record is clear that claimant is not entitled to permanent total disability benefits.
The portion of the Order appellant questions by Issue II is as follows:
WHEREFORE, IT IS THE ORDER of the undersigned that the employer, through its carrier:
3. Furnish to the claimant such medical care and attention as the nature of his injury and the process of his recovery might require. .
Appellee concedes that the issue of future medical services was not before the Deputy Commissioner but argues that the quoted portion of the Order merely requires appellant to do what the law requires. We disagree with appellee’s contention that the Order merely requires appellant to comply with Section 440.13(1), F.S. The statutory obligation to furnish future medical services is subject to statutory time limitations not contained in the Order. The above-quoted portion of the Order is hereby stricken.
The Order, as modified, is
AFFIRMED.
MILLS, C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mahoney v. Sears, 438 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…’s rights to medical benefits anticipated to arise beyond the two-year statutory period. We reluctantly agree and affirm the order appealed. Western Liquors Corporation v. Studer, 391 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Goodyear Service Store v. Rockey, 382 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Luv Auto Sales, Inc. v. Murphy, IRC Order 2-3567, cert. dismissed, 373 So. 2d 459 (Fla.1979). It is unfortunate that, although probable need for future medical care to alleviate the effects of claimant’s industrial accident has…
-
Sewell Plastics, Inc. v. Jackson, 418 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…heet. At the start of the hearing, the deputy announced the issues which had been noticed for hearing; additional remedial care was not among them. See Austin Co. v. Lindenberger, 410 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Goodyear Service Store v. Rockey, 382 So. 2d 816, 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Although upon questioning by her attorney, and over objection of counsel for E/C, claimant testified that her hand still hurt and she would like to return to Dr. Bourguignon, there had been no claim for future remedial care…
-
Commercial Carrier Corp. v. James, 417 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed, subject to deletion of paragraph three of the decretal portion of the order. Appellee concedes that the issue of future medical costs was not before the deputy commissioner. See Goodyear Service Store v. Rockey, 382 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). SHIVERS, SHAW and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.…