KATHLEEN MAY GROBLESKI, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES R. GROBLESKI, 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 orthodontic treatment, even if incidentally cosmetic, is a necessary expense under the parties' agreement if it is required to correct a potentially dangerous dental condition.
The parties' divorce judgment incorporated an agreement requiring the husband to pay for extraordinary medical and dental bills. The wife sought an or…
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 Necessity of Medical Treatment cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion to require the appellee to pay certain extraordinary dental expenses. We reverse.
The final judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage was entered in 1972. The judgment incorporated an agreement entered into between the parties. In addition to child support for their two children, the agreement provided that the husband was to be responsible for all of their extraordinary medical and dental bills.
When the husband refused to make arrangements to have orthodontic treatment provided to the parties’ son James, the appellant filed a motion seeking an order compelling him to do so.
At the hearing on the motion, the appellant introduced the deposition of Dr. James R. Paulk, an orthodontist who had examined James. In Dr. Paulk’s opinion, James has an orthodontic problem which is not just cosmetic. The doctor testified that any delay in treatment might increase the complexity of his problem.
The appellee contended that the treatment was not necessary but presented no competent medical evidence in opposition to Dr. Paulk’s opinion.
The trial court found that the problem was cosmetic and denied the motion.
Under the facts of this case, we are compelled to conclude that the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion. The only competent medical testimony presented at the hearing revealed that James has an orthodontic problem which if not treated may affect his dental health. Even though the treatment is incidentally cosmetic, it is necessary to correct a dangerous condition and therefore a proper expense. Bertram v. Bertram, 334 So. 2d 70 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).
We reverse and remand for proceedings consistent herewith.
OTT, A. C. J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sulman v. Sulman, 510 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…at treatment for such things as obesity and orthodontic problems may be included as an extraordinary medical expense which a former husband may be ordered to pay. See Bertram v. Bertram, 334 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), and Gro-bleski v. Grobleski, 408 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Other jurisdictions have recognized the need to obligate the parent paying child support to be responsible for all health problems of the child, including psychological problems. Kahn v. Kahn, 23 Ariz.App. 269, 532 P. 2d 541 (197…
-
Theisen v. Theisen, 463 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…s respect on the remaining points complained of on both the main appeal and cross appeal. We further find that no error of law was made in any of these rulings. See Dushoffv. Dushoff, 442 So. 2d 361, 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Groble-ski v. Grobleski, 408 So. 2d 693, 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Diaco v. Diaco, 363 So. 2d 183, 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Simon v. Simon, 155 So. 2d 849, 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). The order under appeal is, therefore, affirmed in all respects, save one, on both the main appeal and the cros…
Authorities Cited
- Bertram v. Bertram, 334 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)