HELEN M. CLEMENTS, APPELLANT,
v.
MORROW'S NUT HOUSE AND LUMBERMAN'S MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed denial of chiropractic care benefits, holding that employers must provide palliative treatment under workers' compensation law even without progressive and sustained improvement.
Employers must furnish medically necessary palliative treatment under Florida Statutes § 440.13(2)(a) even if the treatment does not produce progressive and sustained benefit.
[1] Under Florida workers' compensation law, an employer's obligation to provide medically necessary treatment includes palliative care that mitigates the effects of injury,…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 employer shall furnish to the employee such medically necessary remedial treatment, care, and attendance by a health care provider and for such period as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery may require”
Statutory language from Section 440.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1983) defining employer obligations for employee medical care.
Helen Clements sought past and future chiropractic care benefits under workers' compensation. The judge of compensation claims denied the claim based …
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 Palliative Treatment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) denying a claim for past and future chiropractic care. In denying the claim, the JCC relied upon the testimony of Dr. Marc Kallins, a physiatrist. Dr. Kal-lins believed that because the chiropractic care had not afforded claimant a “progressive and sustained benefit,” that the chiropractic care was not medically reasonable and necessary.
Claimant’s entitlement to chiropractic care, however, is governed by Section 440.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), which provides in pertinent part:
[T]he employer shall furnish to the employee such medically necessary remedial treatment, care, and attendance by a health care provider and for such period as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery may require,....
The employer/carrier’s obligation under the statute extends to the provision of palliative treatment which mitigates the conditions or effects of the injury. Professional Administrators v. Macias, 448 So. 2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
The order appealed from is reversed, and this cause is remanded with instructions that the JCC determine whether the chiropractic care sought by claimant was reasonable and necessary palliative care.
BOOTH and SMITH, JJ., concur. BARFIELD, J., dissents with written opinion.
BARFIELD, Judge,
dissenting.
It does not appear necessary to me that this case be returned to the judge of compensation claims to make a determination which I feel is clearly made in paragraph 5 of his final order. In that final order, he determined that it was not reasonable and necessary to continue chiropractic care. The evidence supports that determination. The previous order of the judge of compensation claims was for a two month trial period for palliative care. The conclusion of the judge of compensation claims was that the low grade pain would continue and not be resolved or ameliorated by chiropractic care. In my opinion, the order should be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. Columbia Pictures & Fireman's Fund, 610 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…be, we believe, attributable to palliative care, appropriate for the psychological deficiencies that have resulted from Jackson’s brain damage. Palliative care mitigates the conditions or the effects of an injury. See Clements v. Morrow’s Nut House, 598 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Viewed fairly, the testimony of both Dr. Cava and Dr. Miller characterized future treatment as palliative, and not treatment from which claimant will continue to improve. As this case indicates, and as would be reasonably appar…
Authorities Cited
- Prof'l Administrators & Nationwide Ins. Co. v. MacIas, 448 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)