FAITH LAXNER, APPELLANT,
v.
TARGET CORPORATION AND SEDGWICK CMS, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the court affirmed the Judge of Compensation Claims' denial of diagnostic medical treatment and modalities requested by the claimant's authorized orthopedist. The court held that although diagnostic care does not require proof that the workplace injury was the major contributing cause of the need for treatment, competent substantial evidence supported the JCC's finding that the extent and cause of the claimant's injuries were already known and ascertainable.
The court held that competent substantial evidence supported the JCC's denial of the requested medical treatment and diagnostic modalities. While diagnostic care does not require proof that the workplace injury was the major contributing cause of the need for treatment, the JCC properly rejected the treating orthopedist's opinion in favor of the independent medical examiner's opinion that the extent and cause of injuries were already known and ascertainable.
[1] Medical treatment and modalities with an investigatory or diagnostic purpose are awardable if reasonably required to determine the cause and extent of a claimant's injuri…
[2] A Judge of Compensation Claims may deny diagnostic medical treatment when competent substantial evidence supports the employer/carrier's independent medical examiner's op…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“to establish entitlement to medical treatment, care, and modalities that have an investigatory or diagnostic purpose, the Workers' Compensation Law does not require her to prove the major contributing cause of the need for treatment or diagnostic testing is her workplace accident or injury”
Establishes the legal standard for diagnostic medical treatment in workers' compensation cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFaith Laxner suffered a compensable workplace injury. Her authorized orthopedist testified that additional diagnostic measures and modalities were rea…
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 Major Contributing Cause Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation appeal, Claimant, Faith Laxner, challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) that denies medical treatment and modalities which Claimant’s authorized orthopedist testified were necessary to determine the extent of Claimant’s com-pensable injury. Because competent substantial evidence supports the denial of benefits, we affirm.
Claimant correctly asserts that to establish entitlement to medical treatment, care, and modalities that have an investigatory or diagnostic purpose, the Workers’ Compensation Law does not require her to prove the major contributing cause of the need for treatment or diagnostic testing is her workplace accident or injury. Rather, the award of such medical care is dependent on a finding that the evaluation is reasonably required to determine the cause and extent of Claimant’s injuries. See Grainger v. Indian River Transp., 869 So.2d 1269, 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding JCC applied incorrect standard where he ruled record did not show claimant’s workplace injury was MCC of his need for an evaluation). Here, however, the JCC rejected the treating orthopedist’s opinion testimony that additional diagnostic measures and modalities were reasonably required to determine the extent and cause of Claimant’s injuries. The JCC accepted the opinion of the employer/earrier’s independent medical examiner, who testified that the extent and cause of Claimant’s injuries were known and ascertainable, and thus, the requested diagnostic modalities were not needed for the purposes testified to by the treating orthopedist. Accordingly, competent substantial evidence supports the JCC’s denial of the requested medical treatment. Therefore, the order on appeal is AFFIRMED.
WEBSTER, DAVIS, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aisha van Dyke v. Matrix Emp. Leasing & Fwciga/First Commercial Ins. Co. or Fcic c/o Usis, 54 So. 3d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…k). Further, we affirm the JCC’s denial of the claim for authorization of a doctor, because competent substantial evidence supports the JCC’s finding's that Claimant failed to establish the medical necessity of this care. See Laxner v. Target Corp., 41 So. 3d 396, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND the JCC’s denial of TPD benefits from November 2, 2004, through February 28, 2005, for additional proceedings, and AFFIRM the remainder of the order on appeal. VAN NORTWICK, THOMAS, an…
-
Alvarez v. Fort Pierce Police Dep't, 186 So. 3d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…whether the claimant adequately demonstrated that the evaluation was reasonably required'by the ... nature of the injury’” 869 So. 2d at 1271 (quoting Sumner v. Gardinier, Inc., 526 So. 2d 1068, 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)). Cf. Laxner v. Target Corp., 41 So. 3d 396, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (finding CSE supported JCC’s denial of testing where expert medical opinion established that extent and cause of injuries were known and ascertainable). Thus, in the instant case, Claimant had the burden of showing that the…
Authorities Cited
- Grainger v. Indian River Transport/Zurich U.S., 869 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)