GREAT BAY DISTRIBUTORS AND GULF INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
CRAIG N. EVERETT, 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 a waiver of future medical benefits is void as against public policy and that an employer/carrier is responsible for medically necessary treatment to correct disfigurement resulting from an industrial accident.
[1] A waiver of future medical expenses in exchange for a lump sum settlement is void as against public policy and statutory prohibition.
[2] Statutory provisions prohibiting lump sum payments for the release of liability for future medical expenses have been upheld as constitutional.
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 intelligenceClaimant signed two waivers: one approved for past/future benefits (except medical) for a lump sum, and a second, unpresented waiver for all future me…
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 Lump Sum Settlement cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
The employer/carrier (e/c) raises two issues in this workers’ compensation appeal. We affirm as to both.
First, the e/c argues that the deputy commissioner (dc) erred in refusing to hon-or a waiver agreement signed by claimant for future medical benefits.
We disagree. Claimant in this case signed two waivers of future benefits. The first waiver, which was for all past and future benefits (specifically excepting future medical benefits) in exchange for a lump sum settlement of $7,500, was submitted to and approved by the dc. The second waiver, signed by the claimant on the same day as the first, but never presented to the dc for approval, was a release of all past and future medical expenses. The dc refused to enforce the waiver of future medical expenses, concluding that Section 440.20(12), Florida Statutes, does not permit such a waiver.1 We agree.
Section 440.20(12)(a), Florida Statutes, prohibiting lump sum payments in exchange for the release of an employer’s or carrier’s liability for future medical expenses has been upheld as constitutional by this court in Johnson v. R.H. Donnelly Co., 402 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), review denied, 415 So. 2d 1360 (Fla.1982). The waiver of future medical expenses in the instant case clearly conflicts with public policy, as reflected in the statutory prohibition, and is void.
Second, the e/c argues that it is not responsible for medical expenses that are primarily cosmetic in nature. Again we disagree. The purpose of the order directing the e/c to reimburse claimant for the cost of plastic surgery was to correct facial disfigurement that occurred as a result of the industrial accident. The dc’s order cites 2 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 61.13(f), which approves the award of compensation benefits for such purpose.
We agree that the use of plastic surgery is under the circumstances legislatively contemplated by Section 440.-13(2)(a), Florida Statutes, providing that “the employer shall furnish to the employee such medically necessary remedial treatment, care, and attendance by a health care provider and for such period as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery may require....”
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, C.J., and MILLS, J., concur. . Section 440.20(12), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part: “In no case may a lump sum payment be allowed in exchange for the release of an employer’s or carrier’s liability for future medical expenses.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spotmaster Cleaners & Zurich-American Ins. Cos. v. Special Disability Tr. Fund, 580 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…he E/C. . The JCC did not reach the issue of the informed conclusion by the employer. This issue will have to be dealt with on remand. . See Tower Chemical Co. v. Hubbard, 527 So. 2d 886, 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Great Bay Distributors v. Everett, 513 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Musgrove v. Children’s Home Society, 573 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). , For example, if the potential value of medical benefits was $3.00 and the potential value of wage-loss benefits was $2.00, the settlement could be alloc…
-
Musgrove v. Child's. Home Soc'y & Reliance Ins. Co., 573 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…nette v. Akins, 547 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Lump sum settlements are void as against public policy if they undertake to limit the EC’s responsibility for future medical expenses contrary to § 440.20(12). Great Bay Distributors v. Everett, 513 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Although Great Bay Distributors involved an attempted waiver of all future medical expenses, an attempted partial waiver is similarly void. We therefore reverse and remand to the JCC for reconsideration in light of our holding,…
-
Perez v. United Parcel Serv. & Liberty Mut., 725 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…also improve her “employability.” While it is true that Ms. Perez made no showing that the cosmetic surgery she seeks would increase her job prospects, we conclude that such a showing was not necessary. We said in Great Bay Distributors v. Everett, 513 So. 2d 187, 187-88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987): Second, the e/c argues that it is not responsible for medical expenses that are primarily cosmetic in nature. Again we disagree. The purpose of the order directing the e/c to reimburse claimant for the cost of plastic s…
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. R. H. Donnelly Co. & Hartford Ins. Grp., 402 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)