CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, APPELLANT,
v.
GRADY FLANDERS, 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 City of Fort Lauderdale appeals a workers' compensation order requiring it to pay for unauthorized back surgery performed by Dr. Centrone on employee Grady Flanders. The court reverses, holding that because the employer provided alternative authorized medical treatment, the employee was required to seek prior deputy commissioner approval before undergoing the unauthorized surgery rather than obtaining post-hoc approval.
The employer is not responsible for the cost of unauthorized medical treatment when it has refused authorization for a particular physician but has provided alternative authorized medical treatment. The employee must seek prior approval from the deputy commissioner before undergoing unauthorized treatment rather than seeking approval after the fact.
[1] An employer fulfills its obligation to provide medical treatment by offering alternative authorized medical care, even if the employee prefers a different, unauthorized p…
[2] An injured employee cannot unilaterally obtain unauthorized medical treatment and then seek post-hoc approval of its reasonableness and necessity from a deputy commission…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“If the employer fails to provide [medical treatment] after request by the injured employee, such injured employee may do so at the expense of the employer, the reasonableness and the necessity to be approved by a deputy commissioner.”
Establishes the statutory framework requiring deputy commissioner approval for employee-obtained medical treatment when employer fails to provide it
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlanders injured his back in a work-related accident in June 1979 and received authorized medical treatment. In October 1979, Dr. Centrone recommended…
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 Employer'S Duty To Provide Medical Care cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
Appellant employer appeals the deputy commissioner’s order directing employer to pay the medical bills of Dr. Centrone, who performed an unauthorized operation on appellee. We reverse.
Appellee injured his back in a June 12, 1979, work-related accident and thereafter received authorized medical treatment. In October 1979, he was seen by Dr. Centrone for authorized evaluation and tests. Dr. Centrone recommended back surgery. In December 1979, appellant had appellee examined by Dr. Sheffel, a neurosurgeon. Dr. Sheffel recommended against surgery. Appellant then denied further authorization of Dr. Centrone and specifically authorized further treatment from three other doctors, including Sheffel. In March 1980, appellee requested that the deputy commissioner appoint another evaluating physician. On May 1, 1980, the deputy commissioner authorized Dr. Woolsey who, after examination, recommended against surgery. Several times, appellee sought authorization of Dr. Centrone. Each time, appellant refused authorization but continued to authorize treatment from other qualified doctors. By June 16,1980, Dr. Centrone was aware that he was no longer authorized. Nevertheless, on August 21, 1980, he performed the non-emergency back operation on appellee. Ap-pellee did not seek a hearing before the deputy commissioner prior to that surgery for a decision as to whether appellant would be responsible for the bills resulting therefrom.
The evidence is undisputed that appellee’s condition has improved since the surgery. After the hearing, the deputy commissioner accepted Dr. Centrone’s opinion that the surgery was reasonable and necessary and thereupon found that appellant, having failed to provide necessary treatment despite numerous requests by appellee, is responsible for the medical bills incurred.
Section 440.13(2), Florida Statutes, provides:
If an injured employee objects to the medical attendance furnished by the employer, it shall be the duty of the employer to select another physician to treat the injured employee [as was done in this case] unless a deputy commissioner determines that a change in medical attendance is not for the best interests of the injured employee; however, a deputy commissioner may at any time, for good cause shown, in the deputy commissioner’s discretion, order a change in such remedial attention, care, or attendance. (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 440.13(1) provides:
If the employer fails to provide [medical treatment] after request by the injured employee, such injured employee may do so at the expense of the employer, the reasonableness and the necessity to be approved by a deputy commissioner. The employee shall not be entitled to recover any amount personally expended for such treatment or service unless such employee shall have requested the employer to furnish the same and the employer shall have failed, refused, or neglected to do so or unless the nature of the injury required such treatment, nursing, and services and the employer or the superintendent or foreman thereof, having knowledge of such injury, shall have neglected to provide the same. (Emphasis supplied.)
In the instant case, although appellant refused to authorize Dr. Centrone, it did not fail to provide medical treatment since it provided appellee alternative medical treatment. Therefore, appellee was not entitled to undergo unauthorized treatment and later have the reasonableness and necessity of that treatment approved after the fact by a deputy commissioner. Appellee should have sought prior approval of the surgery from the deputy commissioner. Compare Mt. Sinai Medical Center v. Lack, 381 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), in which the court declared that when the employer was providing alternative medical treatment, the claimant was required to seek authorization for other treatment before the judge of industrial claims after her employer had refused her request for that treatment. Compare also Pinellas County School Board v. Fly, 393 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). There the employer refused to authorize one doctor but did authorize another, as in the instant case. This Court determined that the deputy commissioner’s finding that the unauthorized treatment was reasonable and necessary did not excuse the failure to secure the necessary authorization.
REVERSED.
SHIVERS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
CAL Kovens Constr. & United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Lott, 473 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…in authorization from the deputy commissioner to, so long as care is provided in accordance with the statute, receive treatment by another physician not selected or approved by the employer and carrier. See, e.g., City of Ft. Lauderdale v. Flanders, 416 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), discussed in the Viera case. Simply stated, once the claimant and employer or carrier agree on a treating physician and a satisfactory physician-patient relationship is established, when a change in the authorized treating physi…
-
Fuchs Baking Co. & Emp'r's Serv. Corp. v. Est. of Francis Szlosek, 466 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…erred in ordering the E/C to pay the medical bills of Drs. Stillman and Berntson. The E/C deny that psychiatric services were not provided by them, and claim that Section 440.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1983) and City of Ft. Lauderdale v. Flanders, 416 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) dictate that claimant should have sought authorization of Dr. Stillman prior to beginning treatment by him. Further, the E/C argue that claimant’s failure to submit timely medical reports from Drs. Stillman and Berntson renders t…
-
Sears v. Viera, 440 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…treatment’s “reasonableness and necessity” being approved by the deputy. In this appeal, the employer relies on our recent holdings in Commercial Carriers, Inc. v. Porter, 424 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) and City of Fort Lauderdale v. Flanders, 416 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) for reversal, arguing that it was claimant’s duty to seek prior authorization from the deputy commissioner since the employer had authorized treatment by other physicians. On the other hand, claimant argues that the employer had…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- MT. Sinai Med. Ctr. & Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Davida Lack, 381 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Serv. Vending OF Tallahassee, Inc. v. Dep't OF Gen. Servs. & State Bd. of Educ., 393 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)