BELL RENTALS AND SALES, GULF AMERICAN FIRE & CASUALTY AND TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN HARVEY, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1980-08-28
No. PP-319
ERVIN, LARRY G. SMITH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
387 So. 2d 507 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1980) Negative Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a workers' compensation judge's order requiring two insurers to equally split the cost of additional medical treatment and evaluation for an employee with back injuries from two separate workplace incidents. The court held that medical benefits are never apportionable between insurers and that maximum medical improvement must be determined before any apportionment can occur.


Holding

Medical benefits and temporary disability compensation are not apportionable between insurers. The judge erred in dividing the medical costs equally. Until an employee reaches maximum medical improvement from a subsequent injury, no apportionment of disability benefits is proper, and a finding of compensable injury entitles the employee to full medical compensation.


Headnotes

[1] Medical benefits in workers' compensation claims are not apportionable between insurers.

[2] A workers' compensation claimant's right to full compensation for temporary disability and medical benefits is established when there is competent, substantial evidence t…

Previewing 2 of 5 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

Key Quotes

“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”

Establishes the fundamental principle that medical costs cannot be split between successive insurers regardless of circumstances.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

John Harvey suffered back injuries in two separate workplace accidents: the first in March 1976 (insured by Gulf American) and the second in January 1…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Gulf American and Travelers appeal the Judge of Industrial Claim’s order that each pay one-half the cost of additional remedial care, treatment and an evaluation at Shands Teaching Hospital in Gainesville for the appellee, employee Harvey. Harvey injured his back twice in his job; the first time, in March, 1976, Gulf American was the employer’s insurer and paid temporary total benefits until August, 1976 at stipulated rates; the second time, appellant Travelers was the employer’s insurer when Harvey injured his back in January, 1979. Harvey filed a worker’s compensation claim on February 1, 1979, listing both accidents, stating he had a low back injury and claiming temporary and permanent benefits and remedial care. The pretrial stipulation shows that Gulf American defended that Harvey reached maximum medical improvement on October 31, 1978, from the 1976 injury, sustaining no permanent injuries. Travelers defended that Harvey was not injured in January, 1979 and that his symptoms were only a continuation of the 1976 accident. The judge did not find maximum medical improvement dates, or whether Harvey had sustained permanent disability from either injury. He ordered the treatment and testing at Shands apparently in an attempt to resolve those problems.

We agree with Gulf American that the issue of maximum medical improvement from the 1976 accident was ripe for adjudication. Moreover, until Harvey has reached maximum medical improvement from the second accident, no apportionment of disability benefits is proper. Finally, the judge erred in dividing the medical costs, which are never apportiona-ble. Section 440.02(18), Florida Statutes (1977); Russell House Movers, Inc. v. Nolin, 210 So. 2d 859, 862-63 (Fla. 1968): “[C]om-pensation for temporary disability and medical benefits are not apportionable . .” Accord, Jackson v. Nat Harrison Associates, 283 So. 2d 27, 30 (Fla. 1973). In Russell House, the JIC apportioned temporary benefits and medical benefits, finding 50% of the claimant’s condition due to prior back injuries and 50% due to the back injury at issue. The Supreme Court stated:

When . . . there is competent, substantial evidence to support the Deputy’s finding that a claimant has suffered a compensable injury which is the producing cause of his temporary disability and need for medical care, such finding is determinative of claimant’s right to full compensation. After a claimant reaches maximum medical improvement it may then be appropriate to apportion the award for his residual permanent disability. 210 So. 2d at 863.

On remand, we caution that Section 8, Chapter 78-300, 1978 Laws of Florida, is applicable to Harvey’s claim in the 1979 accident. That amendment, now in Section 440.25(3)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1978), states that deputy commissioners may not “Make a finding of ... a disability for physical impairment that is greater than the greatest disability given . by any examining or treating physician, except upon stipulation of the parties.” We note that the only medical evidence before the judge regarding both claims was that of Doctor Mumby, who found no permanent disability from either accident, much less any basis for apportionment.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN, LARRY G. SMITH and SHAW, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Bell Rentals & Sales & Travelers Ins. Co. v. Harvey, 405 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
    …eputy erred in failing to find that claimant reached maximum medical improvement after his second accident and in ordering them to provide further medical treatment. We disagree and affirm. In his first order appealed here, Bell, et al. v. Harvey, 387 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), the deputy did not rule on maximum medical improvement following the second accident. Bell and Travelers did not urge this as error. They may not do this now. The deputy’s initial order awarded remedial treatment. We affirmed th…
  • Fla. Dep't OF Corr. v. Carro, 410 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
    …So. 2d 590. (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), concurring opinion, cf. National Linen Service v. Stubblefield, 403 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Colonial and Semoran Shell Service v. Grissom, 389 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Bell Rentals & Sales v. Harvey, 387 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). I respectfully dissent, however, to the amendment of the order and would, in spite of the statute, affirm the 10% impairment award. The two specialists’ ratings in this case were rendered in isolation so as to leave to the dep…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw