LANDERS CONSTRUCTION AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
LANNY DELAUDER, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the court affirmed an award of $721.81 in attorney's fees to the employee for pursuing a claim that included medical benefits, temporary total disability, and related expenses. The court held that a medical benefits claim does not become disqualified under Florida Statute § 440.34(2)(a) merely because it includes requests for temporary total disability, interest, penalties, and attorney's fees.
The court held that a claim comes within § 440.34(2)(a) even when it includes temporary total disability benefits, interest, penalties, attorney's fees and costs. The inclusion of temporary total disability benefits as part of essential medical care does not disqualify the claim as one for 'medical expenses only,' and ancillary items like interest and penalties are statutorily provided once medical benefits are determined to have been improperly withheld.
[1] A claim for continuing temporary total disability benefits is considered part of a claimant's essential medical care for purposes of determining eligibility for attorney'…
[2] Claims for interest, penalties, attorney's fees, and costs do not disqualify a workers' compensation claim from being considered one for medical expenses only under Flori…
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“The inclusion of a claim for "continuing temporary total disability benefits after said surgery" is part of claimant's essential medical care and does not disqualify the claim under Section 440.34(2)(a).”
Establishes that temporary total disability benefits are considered part of essential medical care and do not disqualify a claim under the statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn employee filed a workers' compensation claim for authorization of surgery by Dr. Ronald Lakusiewicz, continuing temporary total disability after su…
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 Medical Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petition for rehearing calls to the court’s attention appellants’ reply brief, which was filed under an order granting an extension of time for serving the reply brief until September 13,1980. The entry of our opinion affirming the order below on September 10,1981, was premature, since the extension period had not expired. We have, therefore, considered the matters addressed in appellants’ reply brief and, having done so, adhere to our original opinion.
The sole question presented on this appeal is the award of a $721.81 attorney’s fee. Appellants contend that no award of attorney’s fee was proper under Florida Statutes, Section 440.34(2)(a), because the claim was not one for medical benefits only and because, in any event, the employer/carrier authorized claimant’s surgery timely.
The claim filed in the instant case was as follows:
Authorization for surgery by Dr. Ronald Lakusiewicz; continuing temporary total disability after said surgery; hospital expenses for said surgery; any and all related medical expenses; interest; penalties; attorney’s fees and costs.
We hold that the foregoing claim comes within the statute and that the Deputy’s finding that the employer/carrier’s authorization of claimant’s receipt of medical care was untimely is correct. The inclusion of a claim for “continuing temporary total disability benefits after said surgery” is part of claimant’s essential medical care and does not disqualify the claim under Section 440.34(2)(a). Nor does the claim for interest, penalties, attorney’s fees and costs disqualify the claim as being one for “medical expenses” only, since these items are statutorily provided once the Deputy has determined that medical benefits due claimant have not been properly paid.
The Deputy’s order correctly interprets and applies Section 440.34(2)(a), following the intent of the Legislature to encourage prompt authorization by the employer/carrier of needed medical care.
Pursuant to appellee’s timely motion, attorney’s fees for services rendered on claimant’s behalf in this appeal are awarded in the amount of $1,500. Petition for rehearing is denied, and the order below is affirmed.
BOOTH, SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rich Int'l Airways, Inc. v. Cahvasquis, 416 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…r below is modified to grant appellee [*903] $1,200 for nursing services reflecting costs of these services at the rate accepted by the deputy commissioner. The award of an attorney’s fee is justified by the record [Landers Construction v. Delauder, 417 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Section 440.34(2) (a), Fla.Stat. (1979)], but not to the extent, if any, that the deputy commissioner considered the cost of unwarranted nursing services. Accordingly, the order is REVERSED in part and REMANDED for reconsiderati…
-
Monroe Cnty. Sheriff's Department/Board OF Cnty. Comm'rs v. Ruth, 424 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…tain requested surgery has been held to be part of a claimant’s essential medical care, and as such not to disqualify an award of attorney’s fees under Section 440.34(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1979).1 As we stated in Landers Construction v. Delauder, 417 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981): The inclusion of a claim for “continuing temporary total disability benefits after said surgery” is part of claimant’s essential medical care and does not disqualify the claim under Section 440.34(2)(a). Nor does the claim for…
-
Pub. Health Trust/Jackson Mem'l Hosp. v. Cooper, 424 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…40.34(2)(a) is applicable even though he filed á claim for temporary disability as well as a claim for medical benefits, since the claim for temporary benefits was essentially part of his claim for medical benefits. Landers Construction v. Delauder, 417 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). However, claimant misapprehends our decision in Landers. In Landers, the claim was for “Authorization for surgery by Dr. Ronald Lakusiewicz; continuing temporary total disability after said surgery; hospital expenses for said…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence