AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING AND INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, APPELLANTS,
v.
GLEN SCARBERRY, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed workers' compensation award of future medical benefits, rejecting employer's meritless argument and sanctioning counsel $2,500 for misrepresenting facts to the court.
Future medical benefits in workers' compensation are awarded in the manner and for the time provided by law, and an award supported by record evidence must be affirmed.
[1] Future medical benefits in workers' compensation awards are governed by statutory time limitations even when the deputy commissioner does not expressly specify a duration…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“in the manner and for the time provided by law”
Court's construction of the deputy commissioner's order regarding future medical benefits
Scarberry was injured and sought workers' compensation benefits including future medical treatment, which was included in the parties' pre-trial stipu…
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 Future Medical Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Although the deputy commissioner did not set a limitation on the length of time that Scarberry may collect future medical benefits, we construe the order as awarding those benefits “in the manner and for the time provided by law.” See Lake Highland Nursing Home, et al. v. Everett, 397 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Accordingly, we affirm the workers’ compensation order below because it was supported by record evidence.
We note with displeasure the argument presented by counsellor the employer and the Insurance Company of North America regarding future medical benefits. In the initial brief, counsel represented to this Court that the award of future medical care was improper because “the matter of future medical treatment was not placed at issue by stipulation of the parties.” As the claimant’s brief correctly stated, however, the parties’ pre-trial stipulation unmistakably included a claim for “future medical treatment.” In the reply brief, counsel for the employer/carrier conspicuously ignored her earlier misrepresentation of fact. We should not need to remind counsel of the ethical considerations implicated when an attorney advances a defense that is unwarranted, or knowingly makes a false statement of fact. Fla.Bar Code Prof.Resp., D.R. 7-102(A)(2), (5). The appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the amount of $2,500.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, WENTWORTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Prof'l Administrators & Nationwide Ins. Co. v. MacIas, 448 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…ed such care “as long as necessary,” this language should be construed as an award of such care only for such period as the nature of the injury may require, in the manner and for the time provided by law. See Automatic Data Processing v. Scarberry, 412 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Western Liquors Corp. v. Studer, 391 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Affirmed. ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.…
-
Farm Stores, Inc. v. Fletcher, 556 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…ll be entitled to vocational assistance only if she is able to satisfy the requirements of Section 440.49(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987). Cf. Professional Adm’rs v. Macias, 448 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Automatic Data Processing v. Scarberry, 412 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Western Liquors Corp. v. Studer, 391 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Therefore, such order is not premature. AFFIRMED. WENTWORTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.…
-
Amfesco Duramil Division v. Pastor Guzman, 596 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…e of the injury or the process of recovery may require.” Section 440.13(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1985). The AC award is nevertheless affirmed. Professional Adm’rs v. Macias, 448 So. 2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Automatic Data Processing v. Scarberry, 412 So. 2d 927, 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). AFFIRMED. SMITH and ALLEN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- DuBOISE v. Jefferson Stores, Inc., 397 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)