ROTH BROTHERS OF FLORIDA AND RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
ANDREW SPODRIS, 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.
Roth Brothers and its servicing agent appealed an order requiring them to pay for hip replacement surgery for an employee who suffered a compensable back injury. The court affirmed, holding that although the hip condition was not causally related to the back injury, the employer was responsible for the surgery because one of its primary purposes was to remove a hindrance to recovery from the compensable injury.
The employer/servicing agent is responsible for the hip surgery because, although the hip condition was not causally related to the compensable back injury, a significant secondary purpose of the surgery would be to improve recovery from the back condition, and this removal of a hindrance to recovery would be more than merely an incidental effect.
[1] An employer is responsible for medical treatment of a non-compensable injury if a primary purpose of the treatment is to remove a hindrance to recovery from a compensable…
[2] Medical treatment for a condition not causally related to a compensable injury may be the employer's responsibility if it provides a significant, secondary purpose to imp…
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“the employer/carrier should not be responsible for medical treatment "required independently by the subsequent noncompensable injury when the removal of a hindrance to recovery from the compensable injury is merely an incidental effect of such treatment."”
States the general rule that employers are not responsible for non-causally-related injuries unless removal of hindrance to recovery is a primary purpose
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSpodris was employed by Roth Brothers as a roofer and suffered a compensable back injury. He subsequently developed aseptic necrosis of the head of th…
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 Workers' Compensation Medical Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
The employer/servicing agent appeal from an order in which the deputy commissioner ordered them to pay for surgery on Spodris’ hip. We affirm.
Spodris was employed by Roth Brothers as a roofer when he suffered a compensable injury to his back. The evidence showed that he subsequently developed aseptic necrosis of the head of the femur of the right hip. That condition was not related to his compensable back injury. Dr. Levine, who diagnosed Spodris’ hip condition, recommended surgery to replace the hip. Dr. Matthews also examined Spodris and concurred in that recommendation.
Spodris filed a claim, requesting that the employer/servicing agent be required to pay for the recommended surgery. The employer/servicing agent controverted the claim, contending that they were not obligated to provide the surgery because the hip condition was not a result of Spodris’ compensable injury.
Dr. Matthews indicated that the hip surgery would take the stress off of Spodris’ back, that without the hip surgery “the back problem would deteriorate,” and that “it would be extremely difficult to achieve any improvement in the back condition ... as long as the hip disease was present and not treated.”
Based on that testimony, the deputy commissioner found that the hip surgery would produce more than merely an incidental benefit to Spodris’ compensable back injury and accordingly ordered the employer/servicing agent to pay for the surgery.
In Glades County Sugar Growers v. Gonzales, 388 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), we held that the employer/carrier should not be responsible for medical treatment “required independently by the subsequent noncompensable injury when the removal of a hindrance to recovery from the compensable injury is merely an incidental effect of such treatment.” (Emphasis added) 388 So. 2d at 336. Stated conversely, treatment for a condition not shown to be causally related to the compensable injury should be the responsibility of the employer “[i]f ... one of the primary purposes of the treatment is also removal of a hindrance to recover from the compensable accident_” Decks, Inc. of Florida v. Wright, 389 So. 2d 1074, 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
Contrary to the assertions of the employer/servicing agent, we find that the deputy commissioner correctly applied the holding of Glades County when he found that “a significant, secondary purpose” of the hip surgery would be to improve Spodris’ back condition and that the removal of the hindrance to recovery from the back condition would be “more than merely an incidental effect” of the surgery.
We have considered the other issues raised by the employer/servicing agent and by Spodris and have found them to be without merit.
AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur. By a separate order Judges Shivers and Wigginton have conditionally granted Spo-dris’ motion for an attorney’s fee here. I denied this motion. An explanation is in order. I quote Spodris’ niotion for an attorney’s fee in its entirety:
The Appellee/Cross Appellant, ANDREW SPODRIS, by and through his undersigned attorney, hereby petitions the FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL for an attorney’s fee to be awarded to Appellee/Cross-Appellant/Claim-ant's counsel.
The motion must be denied because it fails to comply with Fla.R.App.P. 9.400(b) which states that a motion for attorney’s fees shall state the grounds upon which recovery is sought.
In Lehigh Corp. and U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Byrd, 397 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), this Court held that Rule 9.400(b) was applicable to workers’ compensation appeals and that an attorney presenting a motion for attorney’s fee must state the grounds including reference to statutory grounds.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami & Johns E. Co., Inc. v. Korostishevski, 627 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…t shown to be causally related to a compen-sable injury is the responsibility of the E/C “if one of the primary purposes of the treatment is also removal of a hindrance to recovery from the compensable accident.” Roth Brothers of Florida v. Spodris, 451 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). See also Urban (a claimant may be awarded treatment for a preexisting medical condition which is not directly related to a compensable injury if the condition interferes with or retards recovery from the compensable injury). He…
-
D'Amico v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. & Gates, 527 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ejected the alternative position of claimant that the treatment for the disorder was necessary in order to properly treat the injury from the industrial accident. In doing so, the deputy distinguished the case of Rolf Brothers of Florida v. Spodris, 451 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We must disagree on all points. The medical evidence presented by claimant overwhelmingly establishes a logical cause relationship between the industrial accident and her TMJ disorder. See Manley v. Bennett’s Truck Equipment, 5…1 / 2
-
Rolemco Elec. Contracting & State Auto Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sellers, 637 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…ings of Alcoholics Anonymous, and to drinking most of his adult life, mostly on weekends, but stated that he had not consumed any alcohol for 2⅜ years prior to the hearing. The JCC, in reliance on our opinion in Roth Brothers of Florida v. Spodris, 451 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), issued an order approving total hip replacement surgery, as recommended by Dr. Cohen. We recognize that in Roth Brothers v. Spodris we approved the deputy commissioner’s authorization of hip surgery necessitated by the claimant’…
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
- Lehigh Corp. & U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Byrd, 397 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Glades Cnty. Sugar Growers & Emp'rs Ins. of Wausau v. Gonzales, 388 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Redgate v. Nat'l Soc'y FOR the Prevention OF Blindness, Inc., 389 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Decks v. Wright, 389 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)