UNITED RECORDS & TAPES AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ANNETTE DEALL, 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 court reversed an award of transportation and living expenses for out-of-state medical treatment in New York, holding that an employer/carrier is not required to pay such ancillary expenses unless competent substantial evidence shows that comparable treatment is unavailable in Florida.
An employer/carrier should not be required to furnish the cost of out-of-state remedial treatment transportation and living expenses unless competent substantial evidence shows that local treatment or evaluation would be unavailable or less beneficial. An employer/carrier may agree to pay for out-of-state medical treatment without agreeing to pay out-of-state transportation and living expenses if it objects to such latter payment when making its agreement, and will only be bound to pay such expenses when the claimant shows necessity for out-of-state treatment.
[1] An employer/carrier is not required to furnish the cost of out-of-state remedial treatment unless competent substantial evidence shows that local treatment or evaluation…
[2] Competent substantial evidence must demonstrate that the nature of the injury or the recovery process necessitates out-of-state treatment because equivalent treatment is…
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 intelligence“An employer/carrier should not be required to furnish the cost of out-of-state remedial treatment unless competent substantial evidence is presented to show that local treatment or evaluation would be unavailable or less beneficial to the claimant.”
Establishes the standard for when out-of-state treatment expenses are compensable 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 intelligenceDeall, a workers' compensation claimant, traveled to New York on two occasions (1975 and 1976) to be examined and operated on by Dr. Robert Beasley, a…
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 Reimbursement Of Expenses cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
This appeal is from a workmen’s compensation order. Among other points raised, appellant contends that the judge of Industrial Claims erred in awarding transportation and living expenses to appellee for out-of-state medical treatment. Appellee traveled to New York on two occasions, once in 1975 and again in 1976, to undergo an examination and operation on her hand in 1976 by Dr. Robert Beasley, a New York hand surgeon, through referral from Dr. Jack Norman, appellee’s Florida treating physician. Appellant agreed to pay for the medical examination and operation by Dr. Beasley but did not agree to pay appellee’s transportation costs or living expenses in New York.
The judge of Industrial Claims ordered appellant to reimburse appellee for such expenses. This was error, and we reverse the ruling as to such expenses. An employer/carrier should not be required to furnish the cost of out-of-state remedial treatment unless competent substantial evidence is presented to show that local treatment or evaluation would be unavailable or less beneficial to the claimant. There must be competent substantial evidence that the nature of the injury or the process of recovery requires remedial treatment in another state because equal treatment is unavailable in Florida. See Keifer v. Cajun Diner, 2 FCR 258 (1957); Mart One, Inc. v. Thronson, IRC Order 2-3507 (August 21, 1978). In the spirit of cooperation, however, an employer/carrier may agree to pay for out-of-state medical treatment or consultation without agreeing to also pay for out-of- state traveling and living expenses if it objects to such latter payment at the time it agrees to the former. If such an agreement is made, the employer/carrier will only be bound to pay out-of-state transportation and living expenses when the claimant shows the necessity for the out-of-state treatment.
We have considered the other questions raised on this appeal and find them to be without merit.
Reversed and remanded with directions that the order of the judge of Industrial Claims be modified to conform to this opinion.
LARRY G. SMITH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Layne-Western Co. & Nat'l Union Ins. Co. v. COX, 497 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…o pay the expense of obtaining an opinion from a fourth doctor even though the medical evidence showed that the claimant had already been treated by one of the best hand surgeons in the State of Florida. The case of United Records & Tapes v. Deall, 378 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) also involved a hand injury. Deall’s treating physician, Dr. Jack Norman, referred Deall to Dr. Robert Beasley, a New York hand surgeon who Norman apparently thought was the best hand surgeon in the country. This court reversed t…
-
Lindsey v. J.R. & R. Enters. & Aetna Cas. & Sur. & Div. of Workers' Comp., 575 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…ion 440.13,” we conclude that the essential mandates of section 440.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and the decisions to which we are referred, are met by the order on this point. Decisions such as Commercial Carriers, supra, and United Tapes v. Deall, 378 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), represent salutary applications of the established rule in the case of out-of-state treatment that such must be required “because equal treatment is unavailable in Florida,” Deall, p. 99, citing Keifer v. Cajun Diner, 2 FCR [*12…1 / 2
-
AMS Staff Leasing v. Arreola, 976 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…l treatment or evaluation would be unavailable or less beneficial to claimant and where equal treatment is unavailable in Florida.” See Decker v. City of West Palm Beach, 379 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); see also United Records & Tapes v. Dealt, 378 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Layne-Western Co. v. Cox, 497 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). However, those cases are dis [*616] tinguishable. Decker is distinguishable because that case dealt with an E/C’s responsibility to pay relocation expenses, which is…