ARREZ BROTHERS CARPENTRY, LLC, AND NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
JOSE ALVARADO ORTIZ
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 a workers' compensation dispute, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed most of the compensation judge's award of benefits to the injured worker but reversed the award for treatment rendered by Good Samaritan Medical and Sheridan Radiology. The court held that these providers' care was not emergency medical treatment as defined by statute and prior case law.
The court reversed the award of treatment rendered by Good Samaritan Medical and Sheridan Radiology because nothing in the record indicated the care was undertaken with the intent of determining whether an emergency medical condition exists, as required by statute and prior precedent. The court affirmed all other awards of benefits to the claimant.
[1] Workers' compensation benefits for medical treatment are not awardable when the care was not undertaken with the intent of determining whether an emergency medical condit…
[2] Emergency services and care in workers' compensation begin when a physician undertakes a medical screening, examination, or evaluation to determine whether an emergency m…
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“'[E]mergency services and care' begin when a physician undertakes a medical screening, examination, or evaluation to determine whether an emergency medical condition exists.”
Establishes the legal standard for what constitutes emergency medical services that must be proven by evidence of intent to determine whether an emergency condition exists.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn employee suffered a work-related injury. The employee sought medical treatment at Good Samaritan Medical and Sheridan Radiology, which ruled out a …
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 Emergency Medical Condition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims awarding many benefits. We reverse the award of treatment rendered by Good Samaritan Medical and Sheridan Radiology. We otherwise affirm the JCC’s award of benefits to Claimant. Nothing in the record indicates that the care was undertaken with the intent of determining whether an emergency medical
condition exists. Cespedes v. Yellow Transp., Inc. (URC)/Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc., 130 So. 3d 243, 250-51 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“‘[E]mergency services and care’ begin when a physician undertakes a medical screening, examination, or evaluation to determine whether an emergency medical condition exists.”); § 395.002(8)(a), (9), Fla. Stat. (2020) (defining “emergency medical condition” as a condition with “acute symptoms of sufficient severity” where “absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in . . . serious impairment to bodily functions”). For example, even though Good Samaritan ruled out a fracture, nothing here indicates that a fracture would have seriously impaired bodily functions had treatment not been “immediate.” We affirm the remainder of the order without further comment. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. ROWE, C.J., and B.L. THOMAS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur. _____________________________