JANIENE ZAHRADNICK, APPELLANT,
v.
CASUAL CORNER AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
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.
A Florida workers' compensation case addressing whether an employer/carrier must pay for medical treatment by an unauthorized physician when it receives notice that the claimant's original physician has retired and a new physician will assume care. The court held that the employer/carrier must either authorize the new physician or obtain a ruling that the care is not in the claimant's best interests.
The employer/carrier was obligated to either authorize Dr. Napier's treatment or obtain a ruling that such care was not in claimant's best interests once they received notice in August 1990 of claimant's need for treatment from an osteopathic physician. The failure to do so rendered them responsible for the unauthorized care by Dr. Napier.
[1] An employer and carrier with notice of a claimant's need for treatment from a specific type of physician are obligated to either provide such care or obtain a ruling that…
[2] Failure by an employer and carrier to provide authorized care or seek a ruling on its necessity renders them responsible for unauthorized care received by the claimant.
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“Because the E/C had notice, as of August 1990, of claimant's need for treatment from an osteopathic physician, the E/C were then obliged to either provide such care or obtain a ruling that such care was not in claimant's best interests.”
Establishes the legal obligation imposed on employer/carrier upon receiving notice of need for specific medical care
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant Zahradnick sustained an industrial injury on July 28, 1988, and was initially treated by Dr. Joye, an osteopathic physician. Dr. Joye retired…
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 Worker'S Compensation Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC). Claimant raises several issues, but we address only her claim that the JCC erred in failing to award payment of her medical bills through the date of her final hearing.
The facts necessary to the resolution of this issue are that claimant sustained an industrial injury on July 28, 1988. She then came under the care of one Dr. Joye, an osteopathic physician. Dr. Joye retired from practice on or about July 1990, and claimant thereafter came under the care of one Dr. Napier, also an osteopathic physician. Representatives of the carrier denied having any knowledge, prior to November 1990, that Dr. Napier had assumed responsibility for treating claimant, and denied having ever authorized Dr. Napier. What is uncontroverted, however, is that at least by August 1990, the adjuster responsible for claimant’s case had received a handwritten letter from Dr. Joye containing the notation, “office closed 7/13/90,” and that a different adjuster, responsible for the medical aspect of claimant’s claim, had received a letter from a rehabilitation specialist stating that Dr. Napier would be taking over claimant’s medical treatment. The JCC awarded claimant payment of Dr. Napier’s medical bills through November 5, 1990, and thereafter denied payment of Dr. Napier’s bills. The JCC required, however, that the employer and carrier (E/C) authorize another physician to assume responsibility for the management of claimant’s care.
Because the E/C had notice, as of August 1990, of claimant’s need for treatment from an osteopathic physician, the E/C were then obliged to either provide such care or obtain a ruling that such care was not in claimant’s best interests. Reynolds v. Oakley Construction, 561 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 1st DCA1990); Teimer v. Pixie Playmates, 532 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA1988), rev. den., 539 So. 2d 475 (Fla.1989). The E/C’s failure to do this rendered them responsible for unauthorized care by Dr. Napier. Teimer. We reject the E/C’s argument that the scheduling of various independent medical examinations was sufficient to satisfy the E/C’s obligation. Colace v. Hamlet Estates, Ltd., 573 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA1991). The order appealed from is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
BOOTH, KAHN and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- L.V. McCLENDON Kennels, Inc. v. Inv. Corp. OF S. Fla., 532 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Colace v. Hamlet Ests., Ltd., 573 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Reynolds v. Oakley Constr. & Hartford Ins. Co., 561 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)