GENERAL MINING & MATERIALS AND TARPON AND MOORE MCCORMACK, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOSHUA TRIPLETT, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the deputy commissioner's award of wage-loss and rehabilitation benefits to an injured worker, but reversed the authorization for continuing medical treatment by multiple physicians and partially reversed the penalty award for late payment.
The court affirmed the awards of wage-loss benefits and rehabilitation evaluation as supported by competent substantial evidence. The court reversed the authorization for continuing palliative medical treatment by multiple physicians because the initial physician's services were adequate and there was no significant conflict in diagnoses. The court partially reversed the penalty award, affirming penalties only for the periods in which no notices to controvert were filed.
[1] An award of continuing palliative medical treatment is improper when the claimant's existing authorized treatment has not been shown to be inadequate or inappropriate, an…
[2] Penalties for late payment of wage-loss benefits are not warranted for periods during which the employer/carrier filed timely notices to controvert.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Since there is no indication in the record that the services furnished by Dr. Abrahamsen were inadequate or inappropriate, and no significant conflict in the three doctors' diagnoses and recommended treatment, we find that the deputy erred in authorizing treatment by yet another physician.”
Establishes the standard that multiple physician authorizations are improper absent inadequate initial treatment or significant medical conflicts.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant began receiving authorized treatment from orthopedic surgeon Dr. Abrahamsen in December 1986. In June 1987, Dr. Abrahamsen referred the c…
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 Penalties For Late Payment cases and more on FLexlaw
[*386] SHIVERS, Judge.
The employer/carrier (E/C) in this workers’ compensation case appeal an order of the deputy commissioner (DC) awarding the claimant temporary and permanent wage-loss benefits, evaluation by a rehabilitation counselor, continuing medical care, penalties, and costs. We find there to be competent substantial evidence in the record to support wage-loss benefits and a rehabilitation evaluation; however, we reverse the award of continuing palliative medical treatment as well as a portion of the penalties.
The record indicates that claimant began receiving authorized treatment from an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Charles Abra-hamsen, in December 1986. In June 1987, Dr. Abrahamsen referred claimant to another orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Helfet, for a second opinion. Helfet, in turn, arranged for claimant to be examined by yet another orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Leffers. In his order, the DC authorized continuing pallia-taive medical treatment by either Dr. Lef-fers, Dr. Helfet, or another mutually agreed-upon physician. Since there is no indication in the record that the services furnished by Dr. Abrahamsen were inadequate or inappropriate, and no significant conflict in the three doctors’ diagnoses and recommended treatment, we find that the deputy erred in authorizing treatment by yet another physician. K-Mart Corporation v. Nasoni, 377 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
Last, the DC awarded penalties on late payment of wage-loss benefits, on the basis that the E/C failed to file notices to controvert. Claimant concedes on appeal that the E/C did in fact file three separate notices to controvert, corresponding to benefits claimed for the periods January 8, 1988-February 25, 1988, February 26, 1988-March 10, 1988, and May 13, 1988-May 31,1988. Accordingly, we reverse the DC’s award of penalties for those periods of time. The record indicates that no notices were filed for the periods August 15, 1987-January 7, 1988 and March 11, 1988-May 12, 1988. The award of penalties for those periods is therefore affirmed.
Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for correction of the order in accordance with this opinion.
SMITH, C.J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Orona v. Baucom's OF Fla. & Florists' Ins., 689 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…t for another treating physician. If the record shows that there is no dispute in the doctors’ diagnoses and recommended treatment, there is no basis on which to authorize the appointment of another physician. General Mining & Materials v. Triplett, 545 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Obviously, there was no dispute among the physicians as to claimant’s condition; therefore, the judge’s finding in this regard is affirmed. We cannot agree, however, with the judge’s denial of claimant’s request for an IME. Cla…
Authorities Cited
- K-Mart Corp. v. Nasoni, 377 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)