REDWING OWNER OPERATORS AND ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF FLORIDA PROPERTY & CASUALTY TRUST, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
ISIDRO CARDENAS, 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.
Redwing Owner Operators appealed a workers' compensation order requiring payment of a psychologist's bill and authorization for continued treatment. The court affirmed, holding that the employer's prior payment of the psychologist's bill in 1989 established authorization for continued treatment in 1992, and that a 1990 statutory change limiting physician referral authority did not apply retroactively to pre-enactment care.
The court affirmed the compensation judge's order requiring payment of the 1992 psychologist bill and authorizing continued care. The court held that the employer's prior payment in 1989 established Dr. Feldman as an authorized treating psychologist, and absent appropriate deauthorization, bills for treatment rendered in 1992 should be paid. The 1990 statutory change did not apply retroactively to authorized care antedating its enactment.
[1] An employer/carrier accepts a treating psychologist by paying for their services and failing to take appropriate action to deauthorize them.
[2] Bills for treatment rendered by an authorized treating psychologist should be paid, even if the employer/carrier disputes the nature of prior payments.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the Employer/Carrier accepted Dr. Feldman as an authorized treating psychologist by paying the bill for his treatment and evaluation in 1989, and no appropriate actions having been taken by the Employer/Carrier to deauthorize Dr. Feldman, ... bills for treatment rendered in February, 1992 should be paid.”
Establishes the legal standard that prior payment constitutes acceptance of authorization and that failure to deauthorize preserves that authorization.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant suffered an industrial injury (herniated disc) and was referred to Dr. Feldman, a psychologist, for treatment and evaluation in 1989. The…
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 Palliative Care cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Senior Judge.
The appellant employer/earrier, Redwing Owner Operators and Associated Industries of Florida Property and Casualty Trust, Inc., seek review of a February 18, 1994 workers’ compensation order. We affirm, finding no error in the order for payment of a psychologist’s bill for treatment in February 1992, and for authorization of such continued care.
The record substantiates the determination by the Judge of Compensation Claims that Dr. Feldman, upon reference by claimant’s treating doctor, provided treatment and evaluation services to claimant and was paid in due course by appellants. Claimant returned to Dr. Feldman in early 1992 because he had continued to experience depression and anxiety during the intervening period while working as a truck driver and continuing to receive authorized treatment for his industrial injury, a herniated disc. The order finds “that the Employer/Carrier accepted Dr. Feldman as an authorized treating psychologist by paying the bill for his treatment and evaluation in 1989, and no appropriate actions having been taken by the Employer/Carrier to deauthorize Dr. Feldman, ... bills for treatment rendered in February, 1992 should be paid.” This conclusion accords with decisions under Section 440.13, Florida Statutes, at the time the services in question were provided. Leonard v. Jim Rowe Pest Control, 545 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
In controverting liability for the 1992 services, appellants dispute the factual determination that the bills paid in 1989 covered psychotherapeutic treatment, and assert, in effect, that Dr. Feldman deauthorized himself by noting “no permanent disability” and “final payment” on his bill. We find neither contention persuasive on the record here, and no authority which compels such a conclusion from a doctor’s discharge of a patient coinciding with completion of initial tests and treatment. Appellants also invoke the 1990 statutory change described as limiting a physician’s referral authority to emergency treatment. § 440.13(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1991). We conclude the JCC correctly refrained from application of that provision (directed at the initiation of authorized care after effective date) in the context here, involving authorized care antedating the enactment.
Appellants also assert inconsistency in the order’s authorization of continued care by Dr. Feldman, after a finding “that the Employee reached MMI on February 19, 1992 with a 7% permanent psychological impairment.” The authorization should, of course, be construed as contemplating only palliative care during continuance of the adjudicated medical status.
AFFIRMED.
WOLF and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fcci Mut. Ins. Co. & Interlachen Country Club v. Schnupp, 697 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…and procedural provisions of section 440.13 were amended. Ch. 93-415, § 17, at 98, Laws of Fla. Former section 440.13’s procedural provisions apply to matters “involving authorized care antedating the enactment.” Redwing Owner Operators v. Cardenas, 648 So. 2d 1205, 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). As to such matters, what governs is the version of “Section 440.13, Florida Statutes, [in effect] at the time the services in question were provided.” Id. at 1205. In Southern Bakeries v. Cooper, 659 So. 2d 339, 341 (Fla.…
-
Smith v. Gen. Parcel Serv., Inc., 699 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…(b), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1992); § 440.13(1)(i), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994). Although a psychologist is not a “physician,” Dr. Rosenberg is nevertheless a recognized practitioner who provides skilled services. See, e.g., Redwing Owner Operators v. Cardenas, 648 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (affirming order requiring payment of psychologist’s bill and authorizing continuing care); Montero v. Department of Transp., 570 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (E/C authorized clinical psychologist to provide treatment); Nurse…
Authorities Cited
- Leonard v. Control, 545 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)