AMOCO CONTAINER COMPANY AND AMOCO OIL COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
MOHABEER SINGH, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Permanent Impairment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The employer/carrier appeals a workers’ compensation order awarding claimant “an examination, evaluation and treatment, if necessary, by an orthopedic surgeon in New York City.” We reverse. All three of the treating physicians testified that claimant had reached maximum medical improvement with no permanent impairment or restrictions. Absent a conflict in the medical evidence, the employer/carrier may not be required to bear the expense of an evaluation by an additional physician based merely on claimant’s assertions of continued pain. K-Mart Corporation v. Nasoni, 377 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Lu-Mar Enterprises, Inc. v. Mazur, 8 FCR 248 (1974). Instead, claimant must demonstrate that such further medical evaluation and/or treatment is reasonably required by the nature of the injury or the process of recovery. Bryant v. Elberta Crate & Box Company, 156 So. 2d 844 (Fla.1963). Since no such showing was made in this case, the award of an additional evaluation by an orthopedic surgeon in New York City was erroneous.
REVERSED.
MILLS, BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Berry Corp. & Commercial Risk Mgmt. v. Smith, 576 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…udge may not order an employer or carrier to bear the expense of the independent medical examination. § 440.25(3)(b), Fla.Stat. (1987).2 Sanlando Reprographics v. Vidimos, 545 [*1368] So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Amoco Container Company v. Singh, 418 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); K-Mart Corporation v. Nasoni, 377 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Lu-Mar Enterprises v. Mazur, 8 FCR 248 (1974). In this case, there was no conflict in the medical evidence presented at the initial merits hearing. Thus, the jud…
-
Bradley Constr. & Se. Fire Ins. v. White, 457 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…lies upon decisional language indicating that the rule is not altered by a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain; since a mere subjective assertion on a claimant’s part cannot create conflict in the medical evidence. Amoco Container Co. v. Singh, 418 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), citing K-Mart Corporation v. Nasoni, 377 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Here, the E/C assert, claimant was treated by two board-certified physicians who both released claimant to work as of June 1983, with no restrictions and a…1 / 2
-
Publix Supermarket, Inc. v. Hart, 609 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…to the question of permanent impairment, claimant is not entitled to be compensated for the cost of the services of Dr. Suarez unless such was reasonably required by the nature of the injury or the process of recovery, Amoco Container Co. v. Singh, 418 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), and that the need for such services was required and the employer still failed to provide such services. § 440.13(2)(a) and (d), Fla. Stat. (1991). In the present case, in light of the substantially similar opinions of Dr. Yates…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- K-Mart Corp. v. Nasoni, 377 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Starling E. Bryant v. Elberta Crate & BOX Co. & Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 156 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1963)