FRITO LAY INC., NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY AND CRAWFORD & COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARILYN SUE ANDERSON, 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 court held that the deputy commissioner's order granting the claimant's Petition for Modification and directing continuing medical treatment was supported by competent, substantial evidence and that the deputy did not abuse discretion in ordering treatment from the claimant's physician.
The employer/carrier appealed an order granting a claimant's Petition for Modification and directing continuing medical treatment from a specific doct…
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 Change In Condition cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
The employer/carrier in this workers’ compensation case appeal the deputy commissioner’s order granting claimant’s Petition for Modification and directing that claimant receive continuing medical treatment from Dr. Michael Gutman. We affirm.
First, we find and hold that the medical testimonies of Drs. Gutman and Blood, together with the testimony of claimant and claimant’s medical records, provide competent, substantial evidence upon which the deputy could find that claimant developed psychiatric problems that were not known, or that had not manifested themselves in sufficient degree, to be subject to proof at the time of the initial order, i.e., a change of condition, and that these problems were causally related to the industrial accident. See General Electric Co. v. Osborne, 394 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Next, we find and hold that the deputy did not abuse his discretion in ordering that claimant receive treatment from the date of hearing forward from claimant’s unauthorized, treating physician, Dr. Gutman, since there is competent, substantial evidence showing good cause why claimant should remain under the successful treatment of Dr. Gutman, as opposed to the treatment offered by the employer/carrier. See section 440.13(2), Florida Statutes (1981) (providing, in pertinent part, that “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.”); Robinson v. Howard Hall Company, 219 So. 2d 688, 691 (Fla.1969).
The deputy reserved jurisdiction for the determination of a reasonable attorney’s fee. We interpret this reservation to be whether a fee should be awarded, and if so, its reasonableness.
The deputy’s order is AFFIRMED.
MILLS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robinson v. JDM Country Club & Corporate Grp. Serv., 455 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…not known or had not manifested itself “in sufficient degree, to be subject to proof at the time of the initial order, i.e., a change of conditon”, and that this impairment was causally related to the industrial injury. Frito Lay, Inc. v. Anderson, 453 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Here, there was no conflict between medical testimony and lay testimony, and no conflict between the evidence adduced by claimant’s treating physicians. The deputy commissioner expressly rejected a finding that claimant’s condit…
-
Normand Deneault v. Alachua Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Prof'l Administrators, Inc., 555 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…t the judge erred by not granting the petition for modification for change of condition. Section 440.282 allows a judge, on the ground of a change in condition, to review a compensation case and enter a modified order. In Frito Lay Inc. v. Anderson, 453 So. 2d 135, 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), this court upheld an order granting a petition for modification based upon a change in condition, because the evidence showed that the claimant had developed psychiatric problems that either were not known, or had not suffi…
-
Gertrude Teimer v. Pixie Playmates & Cigna, 532 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…wledge that “[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.” Section 440.13(3), Florida Statutes. See Frito Lay Inc. v. Anderson, 453 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). However, as appellant points out, appellant was entitled to the opportunity to request treatment by a chiropractor, and at no time did the employer and carrier authorize chiropractic care. Therefore, we also reverse and remand o…
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. First Nat'l Bank OF Tampa, 219 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1969)
- Gen. Elec. Co. & Elec. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Osborne, 394 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)