LEE ROBERTS MOTORS, INC., AND AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES E. DILLARD, 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 an order reinstating temporary disability compensation and requiring psychiatric care, holding that the claimant's pretrial stipulation that he had not reached maximum medical improvement adequately placed the issues in dispute and supported the award.
An employer/carrier's obligation to provide medical benefits, including psychiatric care, arises from the claimant's pretrial stipulation that maximum medical improvement has not been reached, which adequately places the need for further medical care in issue.
[1] A claimant's pretrial stipulation that maximum medical improvement has not been reached adequately places in issue the need for further medical care, including psychiatri…
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 intelligenceA workers' compensation claimant stated by pretrial stipulation that he had not yet reached maximum medical improvement. The deputy awarded temporary …
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 Statutory Obligation cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
In addition to evidentiary issues in which we find no merit, the appellant employer/carrier urges two other errors in an order reinstating temporary disability compensation and finding claimant “is in need of further medical care . . . including . . . psychiatric care.” We affirm.
The contentions are that the deputy erred (1) in awarding temporary total disability from a date earlier than that stated in the claim, and (2) in ordering employer/carrier “to provide psychiatric care for the claimant” because “there was no claim ... for psychiatric care.” These arguments have no substance in view of the claimant’s express position stated by pretrial stipulation, i.e., that he “has not yet reached MMI.” (e.s.) In the context of all facts within employer/carrier’s knowledge, claimant’s stated position adequately placed in issue the reclassification of two months’ permanent benefits paid before the date claimed for resumption of temporary total disability. The order entered, providing credit, simply accomplished that objective without any apparent prejudice to eniployer/carrier’s defense.
With respect to medical benefits the decretal portion of the order does no more than recite the statutory obligation to furnish claimant such benefits “as the nature of his injury and the process of his recovery may require.” Both the proviso “including but not limited to psychiatric care” and the preceding finding of need appear to be adequately predicated on the evidence submitted and the claim for further medical care implicit in the stated claim that MMI was “not yet reached.”
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.