RONALD BENITOA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARITIME MACHINE PRODUCTS, INC. AND OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE CO., 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.
The appellate court reversed a deputy commissioner's order, finding that the claimant's back pain was a compensable consequence of his initial leg injury and that the denial of necessary medical treatment was erroneous.
The court held that the back pain was a compensable consequence of the leg injury, as it stemmed from the resulting limp. The court also held that the denial of the claimant's requested medical treatment was erroneous.
[1] When a scheduled injury results in loss of efficiency or pain in another body part not included in the specific schedule, a claimant is not restricted to benefits related…
[2] A denial of a physician's bill is error when communication difficulties arise between a carrier and a physician, and these difficulties result in the claimant being denie…
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“Whenever a scheduled injury results also in loss of efficiency or pain in some other part of the body not included in the specific schedule, claimant is not restricted to benefits related only to the schedule.”
Establishes the principle that compensation is not limited to the scheduled injury if it causes other harm.
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 a leg injury in 1976 and later experienced back pain, which he attributed to a resulting limp. Medical experts agreed that the l…
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 Medical Treatment Authorization cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The claimant suffered a compensable leg injury on August 27, 1976.
In May of 1977 he began to experience back pain which he associated with the 1976 injury. The deputy commissioner made no specific finding relative to the back pain but limited claimant to the schedule.
We conclude that he erred in light of the overwhelming evidence that the leg injury caused a limp which in turn caused the back pain. On this point the medical experts were in fundamental agreement. Dr. Neal initially expressed some doubt but finally agreed that if there was no intervening cause between the injury and the back pain, the pain was probably due to the limp. Whenever a scheduled injury results also in loss of efficiency or pain in some other part of the body not included in the specific schedule, claimant is not restricted to benefits related only to the schedule. Trieste v. Anchell, 143 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1962). As to Point 1, the order is reversed.
Dr. Neal, in December of 1977,' indicated a need for surgery, if the effects of the injury did not respond to treatment.
In March of 1978, claimant’! attorney requested that the carrier authorize the services of Dr. Turke. The carrier refused to authorize Dr. Turke and requested that claimant return to Dr. Neal who refused to see him without specific authorization. In April, claimant’s counsel again requested immediate treatment which was again denied. Claimant then went to Dr. Turke who treated him for two weeks while the carrier and Dr. Neal reestablished communication relative to authorization and treatment. The denial of Dr. Turke’s bill under these circumstances was error. Travis v. Air Control Products, 6 FCR 214 (1967).
Communication difficulties which arise between a carrier and a physician should not be visited upon the claimant in such a fashion as to deny needed medical attention. Thomas v. Lindsley Lumber, 8 FCR 52 (1973), cert. denied, 281 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1973).
The order is reversed and the cause remanded for an order consistent with this opinion.
ERVIN, SHIVERS and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Callahan v. Sch. Bd. OF Monroe Cnty., 455 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…al of the claim for payment of services of Dr. Wilson [*533] for the claimant’s first visit to Dr. Wilson and for the EMG is REVERSED. Deinema v. Pierpoint Condominiums, 415 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Benitoa v. Maritime Machine Products, Inc., 380 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 389 So. 2d 1112 (Fla.1980); Schult Mobile Home Corp. v. Walling, 384 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 389 So. 2d 1114 (Fla.1980). MILLS and BOOTH, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Trieste v. Morton Anchell, 143 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1962)
- State v. Rapp, 281 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1973)
- Lindsley Lumber & Int'l Ins. Co. v. James Thomas & the Indus. Relations Comm'n, 281 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1973)