WARREN A. IVEY, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF SARASOTA AND HEWITT, COLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed denial of medical evaluation for palliative care where claimant with 20% permanent impairment testified to continuing pain from compensable injury.
A claimant with documented permanent impairment and testimony of continuing pain from a compensable injury is entitled to a medical evaluation to determine need for palliative care following maximum medical improvement.
[1] A claimant is entitled to palliative treatment following maximum medical improvement where the claimant has documented permanent impairment and testifies to continuing pa…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 and respondents settled a workers' compensation case, stipulating maximum medical improvement in 1988 with 20% permanent impairment to the bo…
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 Remedial Care cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on review of a workers’ compensation order denying a medical evaluation and remedial or palliative care for lack of evidence. The parties had earlier executed a settlement stipulating that maximum medical improvement occurred in 1988, with a 20 percent permanent impairment to the body as a whole. We reverse.
Claimant’s uncontroverted testimony was that he continues to suffer pain from the compensable accident. In Walker v. Allied Septic Tanks, 522 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), this court held that under proper circumstances, a claimant has a right to medical care prior to reaching maximum medical improvement. In Professional Administrators v. Macias, 448 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), this court similarly held that a claimant has a right to palliative treatment following maximum medical improvement. Absent anything indicating a change of condition, the maximum medical improvement finding precludes further remedial care. Oak Crest Enterprises, Inc. v. Ford, 411 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). However, it was error to deny claimant an evaluation to determine need for palliative care where the record reflected a 20 percent permanent impairment and claimant testified to recurring pain in the area of the injury. Accordingly, the ruling below is reversed with directions to order an evaluation to determine need for palliative care.
BOOTH, SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Terre Homler v. Fam. Auto Mart, 914 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…d pain-management specialist. The law is clear that once a claimant establishes a PI, he or she is entitled to ongoing palliative care for the condition. See Blight v. Commercial Carrier, 711 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Ivey v. City of Sarasota, 533 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). In that the medical testimony and reports reflect that claimant has a continuing need for palliative care of her compensable neck injury, the JCC’s reasons for denying future medical care are unsupported by competent, substantia…
-
Blight v. Commercial Carrier & Comcar Indus., Inc., 711 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…rcent permanent impairment and has continuing complaints of pain from his injury. Although he is no longer entitled to remedial care, he nevertheless has the right to an evaluation to determine his need for palliative care. Ivey v. City of Sarasota, 533 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). We direct the JCC on remand to award Blight any penalties, interest, costs and attorney’s fees to which he is entitled in light of this opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED. BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., concu…
-
Prime Mech., Inc. v. Price, 629 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…Florida (or another orthopedic surgeon at that facility specializing in upper extremities) to perform an orthopedic evaluation of the claimant” as limited to the determination of the appropriateness of palliative treatment, Ivey v. City of Sarasota, 533 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); [*231] Old Cove Condo v. Curry, 511 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The order is AFFIRMED. ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Prof'l Administrators & Nationwide Ins. Co. v. MacIas, 448 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Walker v. Allied Septic Tanks & CNA Ins., 522 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- OAK Crest Enters., Inc. v. Ford, 411 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)