LUKE SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES PIRTLE CONSTRUCTION CO. AND MARYLAND CASUALTY CO., 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.
A worker with a compensable permanent injury sought a further medical examination to determine if additional medical care was necessary after a workers' compensation order found maximum medical improvement. The court affirmed the denial of the motion, holding that a claimant must demonstrate that further medical benefits are reasonably required by the nature of the injury, not merely assert an absolute right to examination.
The court held that a claimant does not have an absolute right to a further medical examination. Rather, to obtain such an examination, the claimant must adequately demonstrate that further medical benefits are reasonably required by the nature of the injury.
[1] A claimant seeking a further medical examination after a final workers' compensation order finding maximum medical improvement must present evidence demonstrating that su…
[2] A claimant does not possess an absolute right to a physician's examination to determine the necessity of further medical care solely based on having a compensable permane…
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 intelligence“such .. . care and attendance . . . and for such period, as the nature of the injury . . . may require”
The statutory language from § 440.13, Florida Statutes, that claimant argued compelled reversal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1978, a final workers' compensation order was entered finding the claimant had achieved maximum medical improvement, awarding compensation for perm…
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 Modification Of Prior Order cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Following entry of a final workers’ compensation order in 1978 finding maximum medical improvement, awarding compensation for permanent disability, and denying claim for further medical treatment, claimant filed a motion for further medical examination. At the hearing on the motion claimant’s counsel asserted a right to such examination without presentation of any evidence on need. Claimant appeals the order denying the motion, contending that § 440.13, Florida Statutes, compels reversal because it requires employers to furnish to those who suffer compensable injuries “such .. . care and attendance . . . and for such period, as the nature of the injury . . . may require.” We affirm.
Claimant asserts that, as a consequence of having had a compensable permanent impairment, he has an absolute right to a physician’s examination to determine if further medical care, either palliative or remedial, is necessary. We are referred to no such precedent and, absent any evidence from claimant or otherwise, we conclude the deputy correctly denied the motion. Whether or not an order for medical examination would be a modification of a prior order finding maximum medical improvement and denying medical benefits (cf. Bryant v. Elberta Crate & Box Co., 156 So. 2d 844 (Fla.1963), and Acousti Engineering Co. v. Shivers, 391 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)), the correctness of the order refusing medical evaluation in this case as in Elberta “must be tested by whether the claimant adequately demonstrated that such ... benefits were reasonably required by the ‘. . . nature of the injury. ... ”’ 156 So. 2d at 845.
The order is accordingly affirmed.
ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lewis v. Town & Country Auto Body Shop & Aetna Cas. & Sur., 447 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…atment may not be awarded for the period following maximum medical improvement. Taylor v. State, 401 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Oak Crest Enterprises, Inc. v. Ford, 411 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); cf., Smith v. James Pirtle Construction Co., 405 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). For this reason, an express finding on this issue, including the date thereof, is particularly important. The order of the deputy commissioner must be reversed and the case remanded for further findings by the deputy commission…
-
Norrell Corp. & Crawford & Co. v. Carle, 509 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…reatment. The claimant failed to adequately demonstrate that psychiatric treatment was reasonably required by the nature of the injury or the process of recovery. Section 440.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1985); Smith v. James Pirtle Construction Co., 405 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). “It has long been the law in this state that for post-traumatic neurosis to be compensable, it must be the direct and immediate result of the industrial injury and not merely remotely connected with the injury.” Franklin Manor A…
-
Carl v. Sumner, 526 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…The correctness of an order refusing a medical evaluation “must be tested by whether the claimant adequately demonstrated that such ... benefits were reasonably required by the ‘... nature of the injury....’” Smith v. James Pirtle Construction Co., 405 So. 2d 290, 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (quoting Bryant v. Elberta Crate & Box Co., 156 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla.1963)). In the instant case, the evidence indicates that claimant’s sexual dysfunctions began after his injury in November of 1982. Furthermore, although D…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Starling E. Bryant v. Elberta Crate & BOX Co. & Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 156 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1963)
- Acousti Eng'g Co. OF Fla. v. Shivers, 391 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)