WILLIAM BENNETT, APPELLANT,
v.
H & L BUILDERS, INC. AND STATE FARM INSURANCE CO., 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.
William Bennett appealed a workers' compensation order denying payment for chiropractic treatment and attorney's fees. The court affirmed the denial of psychiatric/psychological treatment and temporary disability benefits, but reversed and remanded on the chiropractic care issue, holding that the employer/carrier must either provide requested chiropractic treatment or obtain a ruling that it is not in the claimant's best interest.
The court affirmed the denial of psychiatric/psychological evaluation and treatment and temporary disability benefits, but reversed and remanded on the chiropractic treatment issue, requiring the judge to make a specific finding as to whether chiropractic treatment was reasonable and necessary palliative care. If found reasonable and necessary, Bennett is entitled to an award of costs incurred from such treatment dating from when he notified the employer/carrier of his desire for such care.
[1] An employer/carrier must either provide requested chiropractic treatment or obtain a ruling that the treatment is not in the claimant's best interest.
[2] An employer/carrier may be responsible for unauthorized chiropractic treatment if it is found to be reasonable and necessary and the employer/carrier failed to provide ca…
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“once a claimant specifies to the E/C that he desires chiropractic treatment, the E/C must either provide such treatment or obtain a ruling that the treatment is not in the claimant's best interest”
Establishes the legal standard for employer/carrier obligations regarding requested chiropractic care
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn September 22, 1988, Bennett was struck over the right eye by a pelican hook, causing him to fall from a truss onto concrete. His treating physician…
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 Temporary Partial Disability (Tpd) Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Chief Judge.
Claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order denying a claim for payment of chiropractic treatment and other benefits and denial of attorney’s fees.
We find competent substantial evidence to affirm the denial of authorization of psychiatric or psychological evaluation and treatment and to affirm the denial of temporary total disability (TTD) or temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits from January 30, 1989 through April 20, 1989. We reverse and remand on the issue of whether the judge erred in denying claimant’s request for payment of chiropractic bills and authorization of future chiropractic care. For this reason, we also remand on the attorney’s fee and costs issue.
In this compensable accident claimant, on September 22, 1988, was hit over the right eye by a pelican hook, causing him to fall from a truss onto a concrete slab. Claimant’s treating physician released him to work without restrictions on January 13, 1989, and the employer/carrier (E/C) paid temporary total disability benefits through January 16, 1989. After release claimant requested chiropractic care. The E/C neither provided such treatment nor obtained a ruling that the treatment was not in the claimant’s best interest.
We reverse and remand for a specific finding as to whether chiropractic treatment was reasonable and necessary palliative care for claimant’s condition. We have held in several cases that once a claimant specifies to the E/C that he desires chiropractic treatment, the E/C must either provide such treatment or obtain a ruling that the treatment is not in the claimant’s best interest. If the E/C fail to provide the care or obtain a ruling, they will be responsible for unauthorized treatment pursuant to section 440.13(2), Florida Statutes, if the treatment is found by the JCC to be reasonable and necessary. See Teimer v. Pixie Playmates, 532 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Jackson v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 520 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Although the JCC accepted the testimony of treating neurologist Dr. Mamsa in his order (including Mamsa’s testimony that he did not believe chiropractic care was medically necessary), he failed to make a specific finding in his order that chiropractic treatment was neither “medically [n]or reasonably necessary.” 532 So. 2d at 40. As in Teimer, therefore, we reverse and remand for a specific finding as to whether:
‘chiropractic treatment in general was reasonable and necessary palliative care for claimant’s compensable condition.’ If such chiropractic care is found to have been reasonable and necessary for claimant’s condition as it existed at that time, then claimant is entitled to an award of the costs incurred from such treatment as of the date that claimant made the employer and carrier aware that she desired such treatment, and gave them a reasonable time to authorize a chiropractor. 532 So. 2d at 41 (citations omitted).
Since the award or denial of attorney’s fee and costs before the judge may be affected by the outcome of the remand, we also remand on the attorney’s fee and costs issue.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED and REMANDED in part.
JO ANOS and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Westinghouse Elec. & Gates McDonald & Co. v. Widlan, 623 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…treatment); Stines v. Winter Haven Hospital/Self-Insured, 548 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Dr. Frankl testified the medical treatment rendered to Claimant’s back was reasonable and necessary, and the JCC so found. Bennett v. H & L Builders, Inc., 567 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (if E/C fail to provide care or obtain ruling, they will be responsible for unauthorized treatment pursuant to section 440.13(2) if JCC finds treatment to be reasonable and necessary). Given these facts in the record, we affirm t…
-
Kessler v. Cmty. Blood Bank & Mich. Millers, 621 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…do so at the expense of the employer, the reasonableness and necessity to be approved” by the JCC. The E/C denied Claimant’s request for chiropractic care without fulfilling the requirements of section 440.13(2) and Bennett v. H & L Builders, Inc., 567 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). See Teimer v. Pixie Playmates, 532 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), rev. den., 539 So. 2d 475 (Fla.1989). An orthopedic surgeon was authorized at Claimant’s request, but we note that Claimant lived in Miami Beach and had to make a…
-
Klug v. Popeye's & Executive Risk Consultants, Inc., 593 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…ond issue, in that the JCC made no finding as to whether the chiropractic care which claimant received after the commencement of orthopedic treatment was reasonable and necessary. Section 440.13(2), Florida Statutes; Bennett v. H & L Builders, Inc., 567 So. 2d 33, 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), citing Timer v. Pixie Playmates, 532 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Jackson v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 520 So. 2d 50, 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The order appealed from is reversed, and this cause is remanded for proceedin…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Alfreda Jackson v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 520 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- L.V. McCLENDON Kennels, Inc. v. Inv. Corp. OF S. Fla., 532 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)