VICKI'S STYLING, INC. AND STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
VICKI S. MOBERG, APPELLEE
BARFIELD, Judge.
The deputy commissioner awarded claimant medical benefits and temporary partial disability and wage loss benefits. The medical expenses were incurred when claimant was treated by Dr. Joseph Gelety without prior authorization of the carrier or of the deputy commissioner. Claimant argues that since she was self-employed in her operation of a beauty salon, she was able to authorize medical treatment, as the employer, for herself, as the employee, and this authorization would be imputed to the carrier. We reject this argument. Where the employee and employer are the same person, notice to the employer is not necessarily notice to the carrier. In such a situation, the interests of the employer and carrier diverge so that one can no longer be presumed to speak for the other and, thereby, bind the other. Rand Millwork & Supply Co. v. Rond, IRC Order 2-3538 (September 12, 1978). The deputy erred in ordering payment or reimbursement of Dr. Gelety’s medical bills and related expenses for travel and prescriptions.
The award of temporary partial disability benefits is AFFIRMED, but the award of medical benefits for Dr. Gelety’s treatment is REVERSED.
NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Solar Pane Insulating Glass, Inc. v. Hanssen, 727 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…mployer and carrier are opposed on this claim and the interests of the claimant and the employer ... are the same. In such circumstances, Florida4 does not treat an employer as its insurance carrier’s alter ego.5 In Vicki’s Styling, Inc. v. Moberg, 489 So. 2d 194, 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), we said: Where the employee and employer are the same person, notice to the employer is not necessarily notice to the carrier. In such a [*966] situation, the interests of the employer and carrier diverge so that one can n…
-
Leonard Elec. Co. & Gen. Accident Ins. v. Erskine, 634 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…h as Claimant served as the owner and president of a very small business and, for all intents and purposes was the Employer as well, only the Carrier asserts that it was prejudiced as a result of the untimely notice. Vicki’s Styling, Inc. v. Moberg, 489 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (notice to the employer that the employee had incurred medical expenses was not necessarily notice to the carrier, where the employee and employer were the same person). From our careful review of the record to ascertain what spe…
-
Gomez Lawn Serv., Inc. v. THE Hartford, 98 So. 3d 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…tice of accident based on JCC’s finding that carrier was not prejudiced by late notice, an analysis then required by section 440.185(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989) (repealed), without reference to section 440.41(1)); Vicki’s Styling, Inc. v. Moberg, 489 So. 2d 194, 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (holding self-employed claimant/employer’s alleged “authorization” of medical treatment would not be imputed to carrier); Alphes Enters, v. Dean, 377 So. 2d 791, 791-92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (reversing judge’s finding that car…