LANORIS NEALY, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH AND CRAWFORD & COMPANY, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the First District Court of Appeal reversed a deputy commissioner's denial of a diagnostic test claim, holding that when a diagnostic test is ordered to determine causation of symptoms potentially related to a compensable workplace injury, the cost is compensable even if a noncompensable accident also contributed to the claimant's condition.
The cost of a diagnostic test is compensable whenever its primary purpose is to determine the cause of a claimant's symptoms that may be related to a compensable accident, even if it is later determined that the claimant suffered from both compensable and noncompensable conditions.
[1] The cost of a diagnostic test is compensable when its primary purpose is to determine the cause of a claimant's symptoms, which may be related to a compensable accident.
[2] A diagnostic test is compensable even if the claimant suffers from both compensable and noncompensable conditions, provided the test is intended to clarify causation.
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“Whenever the purpose of the diagnostic test is to determine the cause of a claimant's symptoms, which symptoms may be related to a compensable accident, the cost of the diagnostic test is compensable.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for compensability of diagnostic tests in workers' compensation cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant suffered a compensable lower back injury on July 31, 1979. On January 6, 1985, he was injured in a noncompensable automobile accident affecti…
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 Causation Of Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
In this workers’ compensation appeal, claimant challenges the deputy commissioner’s order denying his claim for a diagnostic test. We reverse.
Claimant injured his lower back in a compensable accident on July 31, 1979. On January 6, 1985, he re-injured the same area of his back in a noncompensable automobile accident. Claimant had been receiving treatment for his industrial injury by Dr. Wilson, a neurologist, since May 19, 1982, and continued to receive treatment following the automobile accident. Dr. Wilson testified that aside from complaints of increased pain, claimant’s complaints after the accident were essentially the same as they were before. Claimant, on the other hand, maintained that his back pain was intensifying prior to the accident. Approximately two months after the second accident, Dr. Wilson suggested that claimant undergo a CAT scan of his lumbar spine to determine whether there had been any alteration in his bulging disc as identified in his last evaluation in 1982. The doctor later suggested that the CAT scan be supplanted by an MRI or NMR test because of its diagnostic superiority. He advised the employer/carrier by letter that he was recommending the test “due to an exacerbation of the patient’s pain.” At deposition, he emphasized that the need for the test was related to the compensable injury, as he was unable to distinguish whether the original accident or the subsequent automobile accident was responsible for claimant’s present condition. He explained that he would be better able to make the determination of causation after the test. Dr. Wilson opined that he probably would have administered the test in the future even absent the second accident since claimant had exhibited an abnormality in his myelogram from the beginning.
Despite Dr. Wilson’s testimony, the deputy denied the claim for the test. The deputy found that the need for the test was due entirely to claimant’s increased complaints of pain following the automobile accident and not due, even in part, to the continuing care of claimant by Dr. Wilson for the compensable injury. In so holding, the deputy erred.
As claimant argues, the record is clear that the primary purpose of the test was to gain an understanding of the interrelationship of the accidents. Whenever the purpose of the diagnostic test is to determine the cause of a claimant’s symptoms, which symptoms may be related to a compensable accident, the cost of the diagnostic test is compensable. Boykin v. American Marine Products, Inc., 395 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). This is true even though it should later be determined that the claimant suffered from both compensable and noncompensable conditions. Barris v. Toppers of Florida, Inc., 382 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
We hold that Boykin and Barris control the outcome of this case. Glades County Sugar Growers v. Gonzales, 388 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), and Newhouse v. Volusia County School Board, 474 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), relied on by the E/C, are distinguishable, as they involved claims not for diagnostic studies, but, instead, for medical treatment, and the issue of causal chain between the compensable and noncompensable accidents and all claims.
Accordingly, we reverse the deputy’s order denying the claim for the diagnostic test and remand this cause for the deputy to grant the claim.
SMITH, and «TOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Watkins v. Res. Prop. Mgmt., 596 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…rmine the cause of the condition. It is well settled that a diagnostic test is compensable when it is conducted to determine the cause of a claimant’s symptoms and whether they are related to a compensable accident. Nealy v. City of West Palm Beach, 491 So. 2d 585, 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Any doubts concerning Watkins’ credibility regarding when he first began experiencing knee pain were not an adequate basis for rejecting Watkins’ claim for diagnostic testing, in that there was clearly CSE that the knee pai…
-
Abbott v. Price Plumbing, Inc., 500 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…tests are intended to better ascertain the cause of claimant’s symptoms, and such symptoms may be related to treatment for a compensable injury, claimant should have been awarded the diagnostic testing claimed. Cf., Nealy v. City of West Palm Beach, 491 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded. BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS, J., concur.…
-
Hernando Sanchez v. Sec. Sales Co. & Zurich Ins. Co., 522 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…g. Further, “[wjhenever the purpose of the diagnostic test is to determine the cause of claimant’s symptoms, which symptoms may be related to a compensable accident, the cost of the diagnostic test is com-pensable.” Nealy v. City of West Palm Beach, 491 So. 2d 585, 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). See also Abbott v. Price Plumbing Inc., and F.C.C.I., 500 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), and cases cited within. Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Glades Cnty. Sugar Growers & Emp'rs Ins. of Wausau v. Gonzales, 388 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Newhouse v. Volusia Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Peninsular Fire Ins. Co., 474 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Barris v. Toppers OF Fla., Inc., 382 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Boykin v. Am. Marine Prods., Inc., 395 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)