VANNICE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, AND AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANK SILVERMAN, 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 worker's compensation appeal, the court addressed whether the employer/carrier must pay for the claimant's psychiatric and medication bills when the treating physicians failed to comply with statutory reporting requirements. The court held that while the deputy erred in certain respects, payment of medical bills requires a finding of good cause excusing noncompliance with Section 440.13(1) reporting requirements.
The court affirmed the 35% impairment rating and wage-earning capacity findings but reversed and remanded regarding payment of psychiatric bills. The court held that payment of medical services requires a finding of good cause excusing the physician's failure to comply with Section 440.13(1) reporting requirements, and remanded for the deputy to make specific findings on this issue.
[1] A party waives the right to challenge a technical error in a deputy commissioner's order if the error is not brought to the deputy's attention within thirty days after th…
[2] A deputy commissioner's determination of loss of wage earning capacity is subject to reversal only if not supported by competent and substantial evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A finding of good cause is a prerequisite to an order for payment of medical services where the statutory reporting requirements have not been met.”
Establishes the legal standard that before ordering payment of medical bills, the deputy must find good cause excusing non-compliance with Section 440.13(1) reporting requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant Silverman sustained a work-related injury resulting in traumatically induced seizure syndrome. The deputy awarded him a 35% permanent impairm…
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 Reporting Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
LARRY G. SMITH, Judge.
In this worker’s compensation appeal, the employer/carrier contend the deputy erred in utilizing and relying on Dr. Lossing’s rating which was not based on the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides).
The employer/carrier further urge as error paragraph five of the deputy’s order1 — which arguably requires them to pay claimant’s psychiatric bills — on the ground that there was no compliance with the reporting requirements of Section 440.13(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.1978).
In his cross-appeal, claimant contends the deputy erred in determining his disability solely on the basis of his anatomical impairment without consideration of his loss of wage earning capacity. He also complains that the deputy erred in failing to require payment of his physicians’ bills.
Although the deputy’s reliance on Dr. Lossing’s rating was a technical error, we nevertheless affirm this point because the employer/carrier failed to bring this error to the deputy’s attention during the thirty day period before the order became final. Dade American Hospital Supply v. Perez, 417 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
We also affirm without discussion, the deputy’s finding of no wage earning capacity loss in excess of the 35% permanent impairment rating as this is supported by competent and substantial evidence in the record. Next, we find that payment of claimant’s physicians’ bills was a contested issue below and thus the deputy was required to determine whether the reporting requirements of Section 440.13(1) were met, or if not, whether there-was an excuse for noncompliance.2 The deputy’s failure to make find ings in this respect requires reversal on this point. Arkin Building Corporation v. Miller, 401 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Finally, we construe paragraph five of the deputy’s order as requiring payment of claimant’s psychiatrist’s bill. This was error since the order does not set forth good cause for the psychiatrist’s failure to follow the reporting requirements of Section 440.-13(1). A finding of good cause is a prerequisite to an order for payment of medical services where the statutory reporting requirements have not been met. Thus on remand, the deputy is directed to make findings on the existence or nonexistence of good cause which would excuse the psychiatrist from timely filing his medical reports. Cedars of Lebanon Health Care Center, Inc. v. Summerset, 409 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Accordingly, the order is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
JOANOS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . Paragraph five of the decretal portion of the deputy’s order provides:
The Employer/Carrier shall reimburse the Claimant, or pay directly to the pharmacies, as the case may be, the charges for medications prescribed by the various physicians for the treatment of the Claimant’s traumatically induced seizure syndrome, and the psychiatric care related thereto.
. On remand, claimant is reminded of the requirement that copies of medical bills are to be introduced into evidence. American Grinding and Equipment v. Rodman, 411 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Worthy Watson v. Freeman Decorating Co. & Hartford Ins. Grp., 455 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…Corp. v. Coker, 411 So. 2d 1026, 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Walt Disney World v. Schiebel, 414 So. 2d 602, 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Cedars of Lebanon Health Care v. Summerset, 409 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Vannice Construction Co. v. Silverman, 419 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Other cases, however, consider the conduct of the employer as the more determinative evidence in resolving a good cause question. See, e.g., Willard Kaufman Co. v. Rawlings, 414 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Commercial Carrier…
-
Peck v. Palm Beach Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 442 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…ards not based on evidence reflecting the use of the guides, have nonetheless observed that such awards, entered on or after August 1, 1979, were “technical violations” of Section 440.15(3)(a)3. Snead, at 1017; Vannice Construction Co. v. Silverman, 419 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Dade American Hospital Supply v. Perez, 417 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Although it does not appear from any of the above opinions whether the court was asked if Section 440.15(3)(a)3’s provisions could be retrospectiv…
-
Heath & Co. (Fischbach Corporation) & The Travelers Ins. Co. v. William Greifzu (Sieber), 545 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…this provision, we have required the deputy commissioner to make a finding of good cause where a failure to report is excused. Fuchs Baking Company v. Estate of Szlosek, 466 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), Vannice Construction Company v. Silverman, 419 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), Cedars of Lebanon Health Care Center, Inc. v. Summerset, 409 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The record contains competent, substantial evidence to support the deputy’s finding that the services of Dr. Lakdawala were reasonably…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dade Am. Hosp. Supply & Kemper Ins. v. Manuel Perez and the Division of Workers' Compensation, 417 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Rita v. State, 409 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Am. Grinding & Equip. v. Angel Rodman and the Division of Workers' Compensation, 411 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Arkin Bldg. Corp. & Travelers Ins. Co. v. Miller, 401 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)