HAROLD DELONG, APPELLANT,
v.
3015 WEST CORPORATION, AND ROCKWOOD INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Medical Necessity cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
In this workers’ compensation appeal, claimant, who was rendered permanently and totally disabled as a result of a compensable back injury, subsequently sought as a benefit lawn care service, which was denied. Although claimant presented testimony from his treating physician to the effect that it was medically necessary for someone other than claimant to mow his yard, the physician admitted that avoiding yard work would not improve claimant’s condition or aid his recovery. Because there is competent, substantial evidence to support the judge’s finding that lawn care service is not “medically necessary” 1 for treatment of claimant’s injury, the order denying the claim is
AFFIRMED.
WIGGINTON, J., concurs.
WENTWORTH, J., concurs with written opinion.
. See §§ 440.13(1)(c), 440.13(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1983).
WENTWORTH, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the judge properly determined that lawn care service is not awardable as a medical benefit in the circumstances of this case. However, I do not agree with the apparent recited standard that such benefit may not be awarded where it “would not improve claimant’s condition or aid his recovery,” by treatment of his injury. Section 440.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes, authorizes the award of such medically necessary services “as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery may require .... ” By this disjunctive phrasing the statute thus embraces services required by the nature of the injury, as well as those which would improve claimant’s condition, further the process of recovery, or meet the medical need standards for treatment. But because the record in the present case establishes none of these criteria with regard to the requested law care service, the claim for this benefit was properly denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Polk Cnty. Bd. OF Comm'rs & Home Ins. Co. v. Emmett F. Varnado, 576 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…s which are determined to be a medical necessity. Diamond R. Fertilizer v. Davis, 567 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). An award of a benefit which would not improve claimant’s condition or aid his recovery would be invalid. DeLong v. 3015 West Corp., 558 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Further, prior to awarding medical benefits, the JCC must determine that the need for the benefit was necessitated by the compensable injury. Stables v. Rivers, supra. The first point of contention herein concerns the requireme…1 / 3
-
Montgomery Ward & Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Francoise Lovell, 652 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…tled to transportation for outings including trips to the grocery store, the mall, the beach, homes of family, and movies, despite medical testimony that such activities are “reasonably medically necessary for claimant_”); Delong v. 3015 West Corp., 558 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (lawn care service was not a medical necessity, despite physician’s testimony that it was “medically necessary” for someone other than claimant to mow the lawn). In the 1990 amendments, the legislature did not change the definit…
-
Eusebio Rodriguez v. Howard Indus. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 588 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…injury. Lopez v. Pennsuco Cement & Aggregates, Inc., 401 So. 2d 875, 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Thus, the statute embraces services required by the nature of the injury, as well as those that improve a claimant’s condition. DeLong v. 3015 West Corp., 558 So. 2d 108, 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (Went-worth, J., concurring). Here, although Dr. Jaen did not say attendant care was medically necessary to improve claimant’s condition, he did say that such care was required based upon claimant’s inability to do daily liv…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence