LEONARD M. KING PEST CONTROL AND CLAIMS CENTER, APPELLANTS,
v.
SEÑOR LEE DIXON, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal upheld an award of temporary partial disability benefits and penalties for late payment, rejecting the employer's argument that benefits were not due without formal request forms. The court reversed only the award of medical expenses for Dr. Vinsant due to insufficient evidentiary support.
The court held that employers and carriers have an affirmative obligation to determine entitlement to benefits and make them available once they know or should know benefits are due, regardless of whether the employee submits request forms; penalties for late payment were therefore proper. The court reversed the award of Dr. Vinsant's medical expenses because they were not properly proven in the record.
[1] Employers and carriers have an affirmative obligation to provide workers' compensation benefits to deserving claimants when they know or should know benefits are due, rat…
[2] An employer and carrier may decline to pay wage-loss benefits until completed forms are submitted, but do so at the risk of penalties and interest if they have not fulfil…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 self-executing purpose of the 1979 amendments to the workers' compensation act places on employers and carriers who know or should know that benefits are due an obligation to take affirmative steps to make such benefits available to the deserving claimant.”
Establishes the core holding that employers and carriers cannot passively avoid benefits by waiting for employee action.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe employee claimant filed a workers' compensation claim and had not reached maximum medical improvement. The employer and carrier did not proactivel…
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 Penalties And Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case the employer and carrier appeal an order awarding temporary partial disability benefits, medical bills, penalties, and interest. Seven issues are raised on appeal, only two of which merit a brief discussion.
The employer and carrier contend that the award of penalties to claimant for late payment of benefits was error because the evidence reveals that claimant never submitted temporary partial disability request forms to the employer and carrier and, therefore, such benefits never became due. We reject this contention. The self-executing purpose of the 1979 amendments to the workers’ compensation act places on employers and carriers who know or should know that benefits are due an obligation to take affirmative steps to make such benefits available to the deserving claimant. The employer cannot simply sit passively by and wait for the employee claimant to take all the initiative. The record before us clearly reveals that the employer and carrier knew that claimant had not reached maximum medical improvement and had filed a claim for benefits. Accordingly, the employer and carrier was on notice of claimant's potential compensable wage loss and was required at that point to take action to determine entitlement to benefits and to place those benefits in claimant’s hands. We recently stated in Hulbert v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 469 So. 2d 235, 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), that the employer and carrier “may decline to pay [wage-loss] benefits until completed forms are submitted, but do so at the risk of penalties and interest if they have not performed their statutory and rule imposed obligations regarding wage loss benefits.” See also Holiday Care Center v. Scriven, 418 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Claimant concedes error in the award of medical expenses relating to Dr. Vinsant because the medical bills were not placed in evidence. We reverse this award with directions to reconsider upon proper proof of the medical bills.
In all other respects we find competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the deputy’s findings.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
WENTWORTH, NIMMONS and ZEH-MER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin Marietta Corp. & Scott Wetzel Servs. v. Glumb, 523 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…bills is improper unless the medical bills are placed in evidence or there is clear and unequivocal testimony as to the amount of the bills. Burroughs Corporation v. Glover, 488 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Leonard M. King Pest Control v. Dixon, 474 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Jung v. City of Sarasota, 457 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Recovery for medical bills is not precluded, however, where the record establishes the causal connection between the charges and the claimant’s injury, and there is t…
-
State v. Wilcox, 483 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…lating to the claimant’s back injury. It appears that medical expenses were awarded for treatment by Dr. Russell, but no bills were placed in evidence. On remand, Wilcox shall be allowed to correct this error. Leonard M. King Pest Control v. Dixon, 474 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED for further proceedings. ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., concur.…
-
Parker Lumber Co. & Catawba Ins. Co. v. Hart, 497 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…, an order was issued on 4 June 1985 finding Hart had a compen-sable injury and reserving jurisdiction over the issue of TPD benefits should they be controverted. The E/C, therefore, was clearly on notice. See, Leonard M. King Pest Control v. Dixon, 474 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (E/C on notice of claimant’s potential wage loss was required to take action to determine entitlement to benefits and to place benefits in claimant’s hands, despite E/C’s contention that benefits never became due because the clai…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Holiday Care Ctr. v. Scriven, 418 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Hulbert v. AVIS Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 469 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)