INDRAJIT SMITH, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS AND NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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.
Smith appealed a deputy commissioner's order denying penalties on late medical reimbursements while awarding statutory interest. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of penalties, holding that reimbursement for medical expenses does not constitute "compensation" under Florida workers' compensation law and therefore is not subject to penalties for late payment, though it certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court.
The court held that reimbursement for medical expenses is not "compensation" under Sections 440.20(8) and (9) and therefore is not subject to penalties for late payment. The court affirmed the deputy commissioner's denial of penalties while upholding the award of statutory interest at 12 percent.
[1] Penalties for late payment under Florida Statutes Sections 440.20(8) and (9) do not apply to payments for medical services.
[2] Reimbursement for medical expenses is not classified as "compensation" for the purpose of imposing penalties for late payment under Florida Statutes Sections 440.20(8) an…
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“payments for medical services are not "compensation" and therefore are not subject to penalties for late payment under Sections 440.20(8) and (9)”
Establishes the fundamental principle that medical payment penalties are inapplicable under Florida workers' compensation law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 24, 1986, a deputy commissioner ordered the insurance carrier to pay the claimant's medical bills. The court affirmed this order and issued…
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 Statutory Interest Rate cases and more on FLexlaw
BOOTH, Judge.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order of the deputy commissioner granting interest and denying penalties on medical reimbursements.
On January 24, 1986, a deputy commissioner issued an order which directed the carrier, among other things, to pay claimant’s medical bills for care furnished.
This court affirmed the order and issued a mandate on April 21, 1987, directing the carrier to comply with the order.
On September 15, 1987, the carrier issued a check to the guardianship of the claimant as reimbursement for medical bills paid by claimant. At a subsequent hearing, claimant contended interest and penalties were owed for late payment of the medical bills pursuant to this court’s mandate of April 21, 1987. The deputy held that the carrier should pay statutory interest at the rate of 12 percent on all medical bills accrued effective as of the date of the January 24, 1986 order and on bills accrued subsequently pursuant to the order until the date all bills were paid, and denied the claim for penalties on medical reimbursements.
We recognize that payments for medical services are not “compensation” and therefore are not subject to penalties for late payment under Sections 440.20(8) and (9). Brantley v. A.D.H. Building Contractors, Inc., 215 So. 2d 297 (Fla.1968); W. Jackson & Sons Construction Company v. Dudley, 374 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). In Teitelbaum Construction, Inc. v. Morris, 489 So. 2d 1241 (Fla.1986), this court held the award of penalties on medical expenses was error “since penalties specifically have been held not to apply to late payment of sums which are not awarded directly to a claimant.” Id. 489 So. 2d 1242, citing Cox Oil & Sales, Inc. v. Boettcher, 410 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Under Teitelbaum, supra, it can be argued that reimbursement for medical payments is in the nature of compensation, in that it is paid to claimant. Obviously, the same public policy considerations for the imposition of penalties on the late payment of compensation should apply to late medical reimbursement. Chapter 440, however, makes no express provision for such penalties, and the rationale of Brantley, supra, is contrary to appellants’ contention.
First of all, we note that the penalty provision is part of Section 440.20, Florida Statutes, entitled “Payment of compensation,” whereas the provision covering payment for medical services, and for reimbursement to claimant for payment of medical services, is Section 440.13, Florida Statutes. Chapter 440, as it existed at the time of the Brantley decision, was substantially similar in that regard, and in the Brantley case, the Florida Supreme Court held that the penalty provisions applicable to late payment of compensation did not apply to payments for medical services. Although Brantley could be distinguished factually on the basis that it involved a direct payment for medical services rather than reimbursement, that distinction is not controlling under the rationale of the Brantley decision.
Accordingly, we affirm. However, we certify the following question to be a question of great public importance:
WHETHER REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL EXPENSES MAY BE CLASSIFIED AS COMPENSATION PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 440.20(8) AND (9), FLORIDA STATUTES, FOR AWARD OF PENALTIES.
SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF W. Palm Beach & Johns E. Co. v. Burbaum, 632 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…of Fort Lauderdale v. Abrams, 561 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (JCC’s award restoring claimant’s sick leave was reversed where claimant conceded that the JCC awarded payment of only medical bills); see also Smith v. General Conference of S.D.A., 535 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (payments for medical services are not “compensation”). Finally, the E/SA assert that the JCC erred in awarding penalties based on a premature filing of the notice to controvert. It is not clear what statutory basis the JCC used…
-
Reza v. Ultra Brake, Inc., 637 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…e’s bills. No other attorney fees or costs may be awarded since claimant did not prevail on any other claim. As to penalties and interest, we affirm the JCC’s denial because only medical benefits were involved. Smith v. General Conference of S.D.A., 535 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) [payments for medical services are not “compensation” and therefore are not subject to penalties for late payments under section 440.20(8), (9), Florida Statutes]. In sum, we affirm the JCC’s denial of wage-loss benefits. We rev…
-
Musgrove v. Child's. Home Soc'y & Reliance Ins. Co., 573 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…release from liability for “future payments of compensation ... [and other] expenses other than for medical expenses ...” Payments for medical services are not “compensation” under Chapter 440. Smith v. General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists, 535 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Therefore the prohibition of § 440.20(12) clearly precludes a claimant from accepting a lump sum payment in exchange for any limitation on future medical care or medication. If the EC is concerned with claimant’s overutilization…
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
- Brantley v. A D H Bldg. Contractors, Inc., 215 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1968)
- Pappas v. Pappas, 489 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Fred Teitelbaum Constr., Inc. v. Sid Morris, 489 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- W. Jackson & Sons Constr. Co. & Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Dudley, 374 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Eichholz v. Bell, 410 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- COX OIL & Sales, Inc. v. Boettcher, 410 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)