WISDOM ELLERBEE, APPELLANT,
v.
CONCORDE ROOFING CO. AND FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK C/O UNDERWRITERS ADJUSTING CO., APPELLEES
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.
A workers' compensation claimant appealed an order denying his request for a new authorized physician and for penalties and interest on late benefit payments. The court reversed the denial of a new physician, finding the deputy commissioner's reasoning unsupported by evidence, but affirmed the denial of penalties and interest.
The claimant is entitled to a new authorized physician because the deputy commissioner failed to meet the employer and carrier's burden of proving that a change in medical attendance was not in the claimant's best interests. The denial of penalties and interest was not an abuse of discretion and was properly denied.
[1] An employer and carrier bears the burden of proving that a change in an injured employee's medical attendance is not in the employee's best interest.
[2] A deputy commissioner's finding that a change in medical attendance is not in an injured employee's best interest must be supported by evidence in the record.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“If an injured employee objects to the medical attendance furnished by the employer ... it shall be the duty of the employer to select another physician to treat the injured employee unless a deputy commissioner determines that a change in medical attendance is not for the best interests of the injured employee.”
Statutory authority establishing the right to a new physician and the employer's burden of proof
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant Wisdom Ellerbee sought workers' compensation benefits and requested a change in medical providers from his current authorized physician, Dr. …
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 Claim For Penalties And Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
ZEHMER, Judge.
Claimant appeals an order of the deputy commissioner denying his claim for penalties and interest on late payment of compensation benefits and medical bills, and denying his claim for evaluation and, if necessary, treatment by a new physician.
We reverse the deputy’s denial of a new authorized physician to examine and, if necessary, treat claimant. The denial was based, in part, upon the deputy’s explicit finding that claimant’s authorized physicians “maintain excellent reputations in the community.” There was no evidence in the record to support this finding. The deputy further supported his conclusion by finding that “based upon my observations of Claimant and a review of the medical reports and evidence, I find that it is not in the best interests of Claimant to change physicians, and I find that it is in the best interests of Claimant to remain under the care and treatment of Dr. Sharfin.” There is no indication of what the deputy observed that led to this conclusion, and we do not find any evidence in the record, either in the testimony of claimant or in the medical records, to support these specific findings or show that it was in claimant’s best interest to remain under the exclusive care of Dr. Sharfin. On the contrary, the record reveals that Dr. Sharfin recommended that claimant secure a second opinion.
We do not accept the employer and carrier’s argument that because there are three doctors in the May Orthopedic Group authorized to treat claimant he is not entitled to have another authorized physician appointed but must, instead, go to one of the three members of that group for a second opinion. Section 440.13(3), Florida Statutes (1983) states:
If an injured employee objects to the medical attendance furnished by the employer ... it shall be the duty of the employer to select another physician to treat the injured employee unless a deputy commissioner determines that a change in medical attendance is not for the best interests of the injured employee.
(Emphasis added). The employer and carrier has the burden of showing that a change of medical attendance is not in the best interest of the claimant. Cal Kovens Construction v. Lott, 473 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Viera, 440 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The record contains no evidence of the qualifications of the other doctors in the May Orthopedic Group or the nature of their professional or legal relationship to each other; hence, the record does not support a finding that the requested change in medical attendance can be satisfied by merely directing claimant to see another doctor in this same orthopedic group. Because the employer and carrier has not met its burden under section 440.13, claimant is entitled to an evaluation and treatment, if necessary, by a new authorized physician.
The deputy did not abuse his discretion in denying penalties and interest to claimant and we affirm this ruling. Crowell v. South Broward Hospital District, 378 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Paver Development Corp. v. McDevitt, 419 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
NIMMONS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hill v. Beverly Enters., 489 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). To avoid the responsibility of providing for such alternative care, the employer/carrier has the burden of showing [*121] that a change of physicians is not in the best interests of the employee. Ellerbee v. Concorde Roofing, 487 So. 2d 388, (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). If the employer/carrier fails to provide alternative care or seek a ruling from the deputy commissioner, then the employee may obtain alternative.. care at the expense of the employer/carrier subject only to reasonableness and…
-
Marcy v. Charlotte Cnty. Sheriff's Off. & Executive Risk Consultants, 599 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…o. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). To avoid the responsibility for providing for such alternative care, the employer/carrier has the burden of showing that a change of physicians is not in the best interests of the employee. Ellerbee v. Concorde Roofing, 487 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). If the employer/carrier fails to provide alternative care or seek a ruling from the deputy commissioner, then the employee may obtain alternative care at the expense of the employer/carrier subject only to reasonableness and nec…
Authorities Cited
- CAL Kovens Constr. & United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Lott, 473 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Kronz v. State, 440 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Sears v. Viera, 440 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Balboa Ins. Co. v. Julian E. Johnson & Sons, Inc., 378 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Paver Dev. Corp. & Aetna Ins. Co. v. McDEVITT, 419 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)