DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT, APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES F. ALLEN, 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 a workers' compensation appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a Deputy Commissioner's order awarding continuing temporary total disability benefits and ordering specific psychiatric treatment. The court held that the claimant had reached maximum medical improvement and that the employer-carrier was entitled to provide its own physician rather than the one mandated by the order.
The court held that the claimant had already reached maximum psychiatric medical improvement based on Dr. Hankins' testimony, making the order for continuing temporary total disability benefits erroneous. The court further held that ordering the employer-carrier to furnish treatment by Dr. Stiefel was improper because no party requested such treatment and the employer-carrier must be given the opportunity to furnish its own qualified physician under Florida Statute § 440.13(1).
[1] An award of temporary total disability benefits continuing into the future is erroneous when the claimant has reached maximum medical improvement from a psychiatric stand…
[2] An employer-carrier must be given an opportunity to furnish their own qualified physician before being ordered to pay for treatment by a physician not previously requeste…
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“the prognosis for any significant improvement in the claimant's condition was 'as close to zero as you can get.'”
Establishes that maximum medical improvement had been reached, supporting reversal of the continuing disability award
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a compensable workplace accident, the claimant was treated by Dr. Gary Hankins, a psychiatrist, who diagnosed hypochondriacal neurosis and o…
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 Temporary Total Disability Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
LARRY G. SMITH, Judge.
The employer-carrier appeal those portions of a Deputy Commissioner’s order (1) awarding temporary total disability from the date of the accident to the date of the hearing and “continuing until claimant shall reach maximum medical improvement from a psychiatric standpoint,” and (2) ordering the employer-carrier to furnish claimant psychiatric evaluation and/or treatment by Dr. John R. Stiefel, who was not the claimant’s regular treating psychiatrist. We agree with the employer-carrier’s contention that the order continuing temporary total disability benefits in the future was in error, because the claimant had reached psychiatric maximum medical improvement. We further agree that the order changing doctors was erroneous on the present state of the record. We reverse and remand.
Following a compensable accident, the claimant was treated by Dr. Gary Han-kins, a psychiatrist, who diagnosed a condition of hypochondriacal neurosis, a condition that is dominated by preoccupation with the body and fear of presumed disease of various organs. It was his opinion that claimant’s industrial injury aggravated his preexisting psychiatric condition. It is clear from Dr. Hankins’ testimony that the claimant has reached maximum medical psychiatric improvement, contrary to the order of the Deputy Commissioner. In Dr. Hankins’ words, the prognosis for any significant improvement in the claimant’s condition was “as close to zero as you can get.” The Deputy Commissioner therefore erred in failing to find psychiatric maximum medical improvement, and his order continuing temporary total disability benefits in the future was therefore erroneous. We note also that a compensation order containing a similar decretal provision was reversed in Doty Exterminating Company v. Jones, 9 F.C.R. 31, IRC Order 2-2617 (December 6, 1974), because such an order makes the unwarranted assumption that a claimant will not achieve any partial earning capacity before he reaches maximum medical improvement.
As for that portion of the order providing for evaluation and treatment by Dr. Stiefel, we find that order to be improper because there is absent from the record any request for treatment by Dr. Stiefel, and under Section 440.13(1), Florida Statutes, the employer-carrier should be given the opportunity to furnish their own qualified physician, rather than be required to pay for treatment by a doctor neither party requested. However, our ruling does not foreclose a request by either party, for good cause shown, for evaluation or treatment by Dr. Stiefel or any other particular physician.
Those portions of the order appealed are reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
McCORD and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.