KENNETH PERRY, APPELLANT,
v.
RIDGECREST INTERNATIONAL AND CNA INSURANCE, 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, Perry challenged the deputy's denial of payment for out-of-state medical treatment and diagnostic procedures related to his pesticide-induced brain and nervous system injuries. The court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding that the out-of-state treatment defense was improperly noticed and therefore should not have been considered, and that diagnostic expenses incurred to determine causation of symptoms related to a compensable injury are compensable even if later determined to involve both compensable and non-compensable conditions.
The court reversed the denial of payment for out-of-state treatment because the employer/carrier failed to properly notice the defense that out-of-state treatment was unavailable in Florida. The court affirmed payment for Dr. Gard's treatment and reversed the denial of other out-of-state treatment. The court also reversed the denial of payment for diagnostic procedures performed to determine the cause of symptoms, holding that such diagnostic expenses are compensable when performed to evaluate symptoms potentially related to a compensable injury, even if later determined to involve non-compensable conditions.
[1] A workers' compensation defense based on the availability of equally beneficial treatment in Florida must be properly noticed to be considered by the deputy.
[2] The cost of diagnostic tests is compensable in workers' compensation cases when the purpose of the test is to determine the cause of symptoms that may be related to a com…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“a claimant who seeks payment for out-of-state treatment or evaluation must demonstrate that equally beneficial treatment was not available in Florida”
States the general principle from Layne-Western that would require claimants to show unavailability of Florida treatment, but which was not properly noticed in this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePerry suffered brain and central nervous system damage from pesticide exposure during employment. He also developed cardiovascular problems, but no ca…
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 Treatment cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
The claimant in this workers’ compensation proceeding appeals the deputy’s denial of payment of past medical bills. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
Appellant suffered damage to his brain and central nervous system from exposure to pesticides in the course of his employment. He also suffers from cardiovascular problems, but the medical evidence was insufficient to establish a causal link between the cardiovascular problems and the pesticide exposure.
Much of the medical attention received by appellant occurred outside of the State of Florida. The deputy found that, with the exception of treatment by Dr. Gard, a California specialist, the employer/carrier is not obligated to pay for treatment provided by the out-of-state physicians. This denial of payment was based upon the principle that a claimant who seeks payment for out-of-state treatment or evaluation must demonstrate that equally beneficial treatment was not available in Florida. See Layne-Western Company v. Cox, 497 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The deputy found that appellant made such a showing only as to Dr. Gard. Appellant appeals the denial of payment for out-of-state evaluation and treatment, and the E/C cross-appeals the deputy’s ruling that it is obligated to pay for Dr. Gard’s treatment.
We need not reach the merits on the question of whether the above referred principle is supported by the evidence in this case because we agree with appellant’s contention that this defense to payment of the medical expenses was not properly noticed and therefore should not have been considered by the deputy. Scott v. Amick Corporation, 529 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Accordingly, the award of payment for Dr. Gard’s treatment is affirmed and the denial of payment for other out-of-state treatment and evaluation is reversed.
We also reverse the denial of appellant’s claim for payment of medical expenses incurred in the diagnosis of the noncompensable cardiovascular condition. The diagnostic procedures were performed after the occurrence of the exposure to the pesticide, and the efforts to diagnose the nature and cause of appellant’s compensable injuries were to an extent intermingled with the efforts to diagnose the non-com-pensable condition. Furthermore, it appears that the pesticide exposure was not ruled out as a potential cause of the cardiovascular condition until after the diagnostic procedures had been performed. Whenever the purpose of the diagnostic test is to determine the cause of a claimant’s symp toms, which symptoms may be related to a compensable accident, the cost of the diagnostic test is compensable, even if it should later be determined that the claimant suffered from both compensable and noncom-pensable conditions. Sanchez v. Security Sales Company, 522 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Nealy v. City of West Palm Beach, 491 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Boykin v. American Marine Products, Inc., 395 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
The deputy also denied payment for past medical treatment relating to appellant’s noncompensable cardiovascular problems. We therefore remand with directions that the deputy deny payment for past remedial treatment only to the extent that the E/C demonstrates that such non-diagnostic treatment was solely related to the cardiovascular condition. Sam L. Rudd Leasing U.S.A. v. Beck, 399 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Boykin, supra.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
WENTWORTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scott v. Bisanti Servs., Inc., 634 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…hich symptoms may be related to a compensable accident, the cost of the diagnostic test is compensable, even if it should later be determined that the claimant suffered from both compensable and noncompensable conditions. Perry v. Ridge-crest Int’l, 548 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Green v. Chromalloy-Turbocumbustor, 540 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Hamilton v. Early Bird Stud Farms, 540 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Diagnostic testing which is recommended by an authorized physician is implicitly auth…
-
Bradford A. Prince v. Prince Ins. Servs. & Lumbermans Mut. Ins., 556 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…s true even though later it should be determined that the claimant suffered from both compen-sable and noneompensable conditions. Nealy v. City of West Palm Beach, 491 So. 2d 585, 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). See also Perry v. Ridgecrest International, 548 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Green Chromalloy-Turbocumbustor, 540 So. 2d 874, 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Sumner v. Gardinier, Inc., 526 So. 2d 1068, 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Sanchez v. Security Sales Co., 522 So. 2d 435, 436 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). To restate i…
-
Arnau v. Winn Dixie Stores & Sedgwick CMS, 105 So. 3d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…prove the symptoms are unrelated to the compensable injury. See Nealy v. City of W. Palm Beach, 491 So. 2d 585, 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); see also Superior Concrete Constr. v. Olsen, 616 So. 2d 183, 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Perry v. Ridgecrest Int’l, 548 So. 2d 826, 827-28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Here, the record does not support the JCC’s finding that clear and convincing evidence existed sufficient to reject the EMA’s opinion. Because Dr. Campbell did not testify in this case, there is no evidence in the recor…
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
- Lanoris Nealy v. City OF W. Palm Beach & Crawford & Co., 491 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Hernando Sanchez v. Sec. Sales Co. & Zurich Ins. Co., 522 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Boykin v. Am. Marine Prods., Inc., 395 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Layne-Western Co. & Nat'l Union Ins. Co. v. COX, 497 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Jacobs v. State, 399 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Jones v. State, 529 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)