YARNALL WAREHOUSE AND HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
DONALD T. JONES, 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 an employer/carrier cannot terminate liability for medical treatment without offering alternative care, even after a physician is put on notice of unauthorized hospitalization.
[1] An employer/carrier's liability for medical treatment continues when the claimant is hospitalized on an emergency basis and the employer/carrier is aware of the hospitali…
[2] An employer/carrier cannot terminate liability for medical treatment without offering alternative medical treatment.
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 intelligenceAn employer/carrier appealed an order requiring payment for medical treatment and disability benefits after the claimant was hospitalized on an emerge…
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 Worker'S Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Judge.
The employer/carrier appeals from an order of the deputy commissioner which found that the employer/carrier, though aware that the claimant was admitted to the hospital on an emergency basis, failed to provide needed medical treatment. The deputy ordered the employer/carrier to pay temporary total disability benefits for the period of hospitalization, interest, the bill of Dr. Hatt, and that portion of the hospital bill incurred before Dr. Miller was advised that the hospitalization was unauthorized.
The deputy’s finding that the claimant was hospitalized on an emergency basis is supported by competent substantial evidence. The point on appeal is accordingly AFFIRMED.
The claimant, on cross-appeal, challenges that portion of the order which denied payment of the hospital bill subsequent to the time Dr. Miller was put on notice that there was no authorization for the hospitalization. Claimant’s argument has merit. Liability for payment of the hospital bill resulted from the carrier’s failure to provide medical treatment after learning of the claimant’s need for such treatment. The carrier cannot terminate its liability without making an offer for alternative medical treatment. The carrier’s action was tantamount to deauthorization of a treating physician. See Pinellas County School Board v. Fly, 393 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), wherein this Court held that an authorized treating physician may be deau-thorized by the employer/carrier if alternative medical treatment is offered. This principle is not limited to a treating physician; it is equally applicable to all medical service providers. The judge erred in concluding that the carrier’s liability for the claimant’s hospital bill terminated when Dr. Miller was put on notice that the hospital was unauthorized to treat the claimant.
As to the issue raised on cross-appeal, the order is REVERSED and REMANDED with directions that the deputy commissioner enter an order directing the employer/carrier to pay the hospital bill for the claimant’s full period of confinement.
MILLS and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Serv. Vending OF Tallahassee, Inc. v. Dep't OF Gen. Servs. & State Bd. of Educ., 393 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)