LESLIE FAYE GARITSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ANNA MARIE RIFENBURG, D/B/A ANNA MARIE'S COFFEE SHOP AND COSMOPOLITAN 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.
Florida appellate court reversed the deputy commissioner's denial of past medical bills and temporary partial disability benefits, holding that once compensability is established and medical expenses are not controverted, the carrier is responsible for those bills.
Once compensability is established and medical bills are not controverted by the carrier, the carrier is responsible for those medical expenses.
[1] When compensability of a workers' compensation claim is established and the carrier does not controvert medical bills requested by the claimant, the carrier is responsibl…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant Garitson requested payment of past medical bills and future medical attention in her claim letter and at the hearing commencement. She saw 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 Workers' Compensation Claim For Medical Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The deputy commissioner ruled that the carrier was not responsible for the claimant’s past medical treatment because there was no request for medical benefits. The record does not support this finding. The claimant, in her claim letter and at the commencement of the hearing, requested the payment of past medical bills and future medical attention. The carrier never controverted these payments, but relied upon the general defense that the claim was not compensable. The record supports no conclusion other than that the claimant saw a doctor of her choice at the employer’s suggestion. The issue of compensability having been decided in favor of the claimant and the medical bills having never been controverted, said bills are the responsibility of the carrier. The deputy’s ruling to the contrary is reversed.
We note additional error in the deputy commissioner’s failure to rule on the claim for temporary partial disability benefits from June 13, 1979 through July 11, 1979. This issue was ripe for adjudication and properly before the deputy. The order is accordingly reversed on this point and the cause is remanded to the deputy with directions that he enter an order consistent with this opinion. Action Pool Builders, Inc. v. Grant, IRC Order 2-3743 (March 23, 1979).
ERVIN, SHIVERS and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Poole & Kent Co. & Reliance Ins. Co. v. Asbell, 394 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…ful job search. The Deputy had no authority to reserve jurisdiction to rule on this issue, which was properly noticed and ready for adjudication. See Coe v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, 393 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); see also Garitson v. Rifenburg, 380 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The claimant failed to demonstrate that his loss of wage-earning capacity exceeded his anatomical impairment, and therefore, his claim for disability compensation based on loss of wage-earning capacity must be denied nunc pro tu…
-
George L. Simonds Co. v. Graham, 395 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…the employer/carrier have raised nine points on appeal, only three points merit discussion. First, the deputy commissioner erred in failing to adjudicate the amount and class of temporary disability benefits due the claimant. Garitson v. Rifenburg, 380 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Although the deputy commissioner found the claimant was temporarily disabled during periods he was not working from October 14, 1977, through June 18, 1979, the deputy commissioner failed to determine the time intervals during w…
-
Flanigan's Enters., Inc. v. Ira Pont, 395 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…laimant’s attorney rested his case. Thus, the issue of wage-loss benefits was properly before the Deputy and was mature and ripe for adjudication. The Deputy should have ruled on the issue based on the evidence before him. See Garitson v. Rifenburg, 380 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). He was not authorized to reserve jurisdiction or take further [*1219] evidence on the question. Maffitt v. Hendersons Portion-Pak, Inc., 132 So. 2d 410 (Fla.1961); Action Pool Builders, Inc. v. Grant, IRC Order 2-3743 (1979); Co…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence