CITY OF GAINESVILLE AND CRAWFORD & COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHARLES H. HELTON, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the deputy commissioner's award of medical bills and home health care expenses up to the date of maximum medical improvement (MMI), but reversed portions of the order directing payment for post-MMI treatment and attorney's fees. The decision clarifies that remedial care is limited to the period before MMI, while palliative care may be sought separately.
The court affirmed the award of medical bills for remedial care and home health care services only up to the date of MMI (August 10, 1983), reversed the award of drug payments due to inclusion of unauthorized prescriptions and post-MMI medications, and reversed the award of attorney's fees. The court noted that palliative care may still be sought separately under statute.
[1] An award of medical bills for remedial care and treatment is improper to the extent it extends beyond the date of maximum medical improvement.
[2] Payment for drugs prescribed by an unauthorized physician is inappropriate.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The deputy commissioner's order directing the employer/servicing agent to pay the outstanding medical bills for remedial care and treatment rendered by Doctors Tingle and Hooshmand is affirmed as based on competent and substantial evidence but only to the extent that it relates to remedial care and treatment rendered by these doctors up until August 10, 1983, the date of maximum medical improvement.”
Establishes the court's core holding limiting remedial care coverage to the MMI date.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles H. Helton suffered an industrial injury and received remedial care and treatment from Doctors Tingle and Hooshmand, as well as home health car…
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
WIGGINTON, Judge.
The deputy commissioner’s order directing the employer/servicing agent to pay the outstanding medical bills for remedial care and treatment rendered by Doctors Tingle and Hooshmand is affirmed as based on competent and substantial evidence but only to the extent that it relates to remedial care and treatment rendered by these doctors up until August 10, 1983, the date of maximum medical improvement. Insofar as the award of payment of medical bills for remedial care and treatment extends beyond the date of MMI, it is improper. See City of Gainesville v. Helton, 458 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Contrary to claimant’s assertion, the deputy’s order does not contemplate palliative care.
We also reverse that portion of the order directing the employer/servicing agent to pay for drugs prescribed by Doctors Hooshmand and Tingle in the sum of $386.56. Such order is inappropriate for two reasons. First, the record indicates that a portion of that amount belongs to drugs prescribed not by Dr. Tingle but by Dr. Little, an unauthorized physician. Further, to whatever extent the remainder of that amount relates to prescriptions written by Dr. Hooshmand following the date of MMI, it too should be reversed.
Nonetheless, we affirm the award of attendant home health care as claimant’s need therefor arises from his industrial in jury and the award is based on competent and substantial evidence. However, as claimant concedes, payment for attendant care should not include those periods of time when claimant was hospitalized and treated for unrelated conditions.
Finally, we must reverse the award of attorney’s fees as this claim for payment of bills relates back to an initial claim for benefits and medicals, and the mere fact of the subsequent settlement of benefits should not change the posture of the claim to one for medicals only.
For the foregoing reasons, the order is affirmed in part and reversed in part without prejudice to claimant to seek palliative treatment as provided by statute and not prohibited by the statute of limitations. Killebrew Manufacturing Company v. Dawson, 401 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
SMITH, C.J., and SHIVERS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Refreshment & Gen. Adjustment Bureau v. Whaley, 577 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…y relates back to an initial claim for compensation benefits and medical costs, the mere fact of the subsequent settlement of the compensation benefits does not change the posture of the claim to one for medicals only. City of Gainesville v. Helton, 543 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Arguably, the circumstances here are unlike those present in City of Gainesville. Here, although the original claim sought a determination of permanent total disability, and twenty-four hour attendant care, this claim was entire…
Authorities Cited
- Killebrew Mfg. Co. & the Home Indem. Co. v. Dawson, 401 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- City OF Gainesville & Crawford & Co. v. Helton, 458 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)