KILLEBREW MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND THE HOME INDEMNITY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES P. DAWSON, 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.
The court held that apportioning disability for a pre-existing condition was proper, but remedial psychiatric care was not permissible after the date of maximum medical improvement.
[1] A pre-existing condition may be apportioned out of a workers' compensation award when it contributes to the claimant's disability.
[2] Remedial medical treatment may not be awarded for the period following the determination of maximum medical improvement.
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 intelligenceDawson suffered compensable injuries and was awarded permanent total disability benefits. A pre-existing condition was later found to account for a po…
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 Palliative Treatment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The employer/carrier challenge the deputy commissioner’s order which reduced by ten percent the weekly compensation rate paid to Dawson for permanent total disability and which required payment for remedial psychiatric care. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
On January 15, 1977, and April 23, 1977, Dawson suffered compensable injuries while employed by Killebrew. The employer/carrier began paying Dawson for a five percent and later an additional ten percent permanent partial disability. Dawson ultimately filed a claim for additional benefits.
On deposition, Dawson’s physician testified Dawson suffered a pre-existing back condition which accounted for ten percent of Dawson’s total fifteen percent disability. The deputy commissioner rendered an order awarding permanent total disability benefits and determining that Dawson reached maximum medical improvement on May 25, 1977.
On appeal, the Industrial Relations Commission reversed and remanded for apportioning out of ten percent of the disability attributable to the pre-existing back condition.
On September 17, 1979, the deputy commissioner entered an order apportioning out ten percent of Dawson’s total loss of wage-earning capacity and reassessing his weekly compensation rate at ninety percent for permanent total disability. The deputy also awarded payment for psychiatric treatment based upon a new claim.
We find no reversible error in apportioning out ten percent of Dawson’s disability attributable to the normal progression of degenerative joint disease.
However, a remedial treatment may not be awarded for the period following May 25, 1977, the date of maximum medical improvement. Remedial treatment is inappropriate after determining a date for maximum medical improvement. The deputy erred and we must reverse on this issue. We reverse without prejudice to Dawson to seek palliative treatment as provided by statute and not prohibited by the statute of limitations.
MILLS, McCORD and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanlando Util. Corp. & U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Morris, 418 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…y). Since it is apparent that the claimant is no longer temporarily disabled, the award of remedial care must also be reversed. See Lake County Commissioners v. Walburn, 409 So. 2d 153, 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Killebrew Manufacturing Co. v. Dawson, 401 So. 2d 876, 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The claimant also sought attorney’s fees pursuant to Sections 440.34(2)(a), (b), (c), Florida Statutes (1979). The deputy commissioner did not rule on the possibility of a fee award based on the first and second sub-sectio…
-
Shop & GO, Inc. v. Hart, 537 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…fer to remedial treatment. Remedial treatment may not be awarded after the date the claimant reaches MMI. Sanlando Utility Corp., supra; Lake County Commissioners v. Walburn, 409 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Killebrew Manufacturing Co. v. Dawson, 401 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). [*669] Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse, and remand. BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Keller Kitchen Cabinets & Alexis, Inc. v. Holder, 586 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…(IRC 1973). This legal proposition was thereafter picked up in court decisions as an established legal principle that precludes an award of remedial medical benefits after an injured employee reaches MMI. E.g. Killebrew Manufacturing Co. v. Dawson, 401 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (“remedial treatment is inappropriate after determining a date for maximum medical improvement”); Oak Crest Enterprises, Inc. v. Ford, 411 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (“A claimant who has reached MMI and has been released by h…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence