PALM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, INC., AND FRED S. JAMES & COMPANY OF FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
SOPHIA B. ROSTON, 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 the Deputy Commissioner's award of temporary total disability benefits to an employee and finding that the employer must pay for unauthorized chiropractic treatment. The court held that without competent medical evidence of inability to work, the claimant must demonstrate a conscientious effort to return to work, and that unauthorized medical treatment does not become compensable merely because the Deputy Commissioner deems it reasonable and necessary.
The court reversed the award of temporary total disability benefits because the claimant failed to establish the required elements: no medical evidence supported her inability to work, she made no conscientious effort to return to work, and she failed to show either successful work search with inability to perform or unsuccessful work search due to disability. The court also reversed the requirement to pay unauthorized chiropractic treatment, holding that lack of authorization cannot be excused merely by a finding that the treatment was reasonable and necessary.
[1] Temporary total disability benefits require competent substantial evidence that the claimant is unable to work, or a conscientious effort to return to work in the absence…
[2] A claimant's testimony regarding their own perceived inability to work is insufficient, on its own, to support an award of temporary total disability benefits.
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“There must be competent substantial evidence showing that the claimant is unable to work before she is entitled to temporary total disability benefits. When there is a lack of medical evidence in this respect, then the claimant must make a conscientious effort tp return to work before she can establish that she is unable to work and is entitled to temporary total disability benefits.”
Establishes the legal standard for temporary total disability benefits requiring either competent medical evidence of inability to work or proof of a conscientious effort to return to work when such evidence is lacking
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 sought workers' compensation benefits for temporary total disability. She was treated by four medical doctors, none of whom opined that s…
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 Unauthorized Medical Treatment cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
On this appeal, the employer/carrier contends that the Deputy Commissioner erred by awarding temporary total disability benefits to the claimant and by finding that the employer/carrier is responsible for the costs of treatment by an unauthorized physician. We agree and reverse.
There must be competent substantial evidence showing that the claimant is unable to work before she is entitled to temporary total disability benefits. When there is a lack of medical evidence in this respect, then the claimant must make a conscientious effort tp return to work before she can establish that she is unable to work and is entitled to temporary total disability benefits. Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Bennett, 396 So. 2d 847, 848 (Fla.1st DCA 1981); Tallahassee Coca Cola Bottling Company v. Parramore, 395 So. 2d 275, 276 (Fla.1st DCA 1981); Walter Glades Condominium v. Morris, 393 So. 2d 664, 665 (Fla.1st DCA 1981).
In this case, the claimant was treated by four medical doctors and none of these was of the opinion that she was unable to work. Dr. Holder, a chiropractor, did advise her against returning to work to the extent that pain would result, but the Deputy Commissioner specifically rejected Dr. Holder’s findings in this regard. There was no medical evidence of the claimant’s inability to return to work. Additionally, the record does not reflect that the claimant made a conscientious effort to return to her employment. Also, once that employment was terminated, the claimant was required to seek work to establish temporary total disability. She had the burden of showing that her work search was successful, but that she was unable to perform the work. Alternatively, she would have to show that a bona fide work search was unsuccessful due to her disability. See Lehigh Corp. v. Byrd, 397 So. 2d 1202, 1204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The claimant has failed to establish any of the preceding elements. Moreover, her testimony to the effect that she did not feel capable of working cannot serve as the basis for an award of temporary total disability benefits. Morris, 393 So. 2d at 665.
The Deputy Commissioner also found that Dr. Holder’s treatment was reasonable and necessary and that the employer/earrier was responsible for the payment of Dr. Holder’s bills, along with a transportation reimbursement for the claimant. Dr. Holder’s treatment was not authorized and an unexplained finding by the Deputy Commissioner that the unauthorized treatment was reasonable and necessary does not excuse the failure to obtain authorization. Broward Industrial Plating, Inc. v. Weiby, 394 So. 2d 1117, 1120 (Fla.1st DCA 1981).
The Deputy Commissioner’s Order is reversed insofar as it awards temporary total disability benefits and directs the employer/carrier to pay Dr. Holder’s bills and reimburse the claimant for transportation expenses incurred in conjunction with his treatment. This cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and JOA-NOS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Romero v. Waterproofing Sys. OF Miami & Kemper Ins. Grp., 491 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…84, and ending on August 30, 1984, is affirmed. Before a claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits, there must be competent substantial evidence demonstrating the claimant’s inability to work. Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Roston, 404 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The most convincing medical evidence, however, regarding Romero’s ability to work was Dr. Gilbert’s testimony that Romero could continue to work but under minimally restrictive circumstances. See Burroughs Corp. v. Glover, 488 S…
-
Oriente Express INN & Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Eugenia C. Rodriguez and Division of Workers' Compensation, 406 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…e and a claimant’s testimony, or absence of work search after a medical release for that purpose, are of course to be distinguished. Cf., Walter Glades Condominium v. Morris, 393 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Roston, 404 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Martin Marietta Corp. v. Johnson, 7 FCR 355 (1973), cert. denied, 283 So. 2d 557 (Fla.1973). See also Orange County Board of County Commissioners v. Brenemen, 233 So. 2d 377 (Fla.1980), and Decks, Inc. of Florida v. Wright, 389…
-
Fla. Mining & Minerals & Whiting Nat'l Servs., Inc. v. Foster Brantley, 418 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…t been required by prior decisions of this court. See, for example, Lehigh Corp. v. Byrd, 397 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Coca-Cola Company—Foods Division v. Lucien, 399 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); and Palm Beach Newspapers Inc. v. Roston, 404 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). This court alluded to the inherent difficulties in obtaining direct evidence showing the specific reason for rejection by an employer in Flesche v. Interstate Warehouse, 411 So. 2d 919, 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), particularly foot…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Walter Glades Condo. v. Petunia Morris, 393 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Tallahassee Coca Cola Bottling Co. & Hartford Ins. Co. v. Parramore, 395 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Broward Indus. Plating, Inc. v. Weiby, 394 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Lehigh Corp. & U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Byrd, 397 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Bennett, 396 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)