ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND ALEXSIS, APPELLANTS,
v.
EVERALD EBANKS, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1992-11-24
No. 91-4016
BOOTH, SMITH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
608 So. 2d 578 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1992)

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.

Synopsis

The Orange County School Board and its workers' compensation carrier appealed a compensation order requiring evaluation by a neurologist or neurosurgeon. The court affirmed the order for evaluation but reversed the authorization allowing the treating chiropractor to select the specialist, holding that the employer retains the initial right to select the physician under Florida workers' compensation law.


Holding

The court held that while the order for evaluation by a neurologist or neurosurgeon was proper, the judge erred in authorizing Dr. Levreault to select the specific physician. The employer retains the initial right to select the physician under sections 440.13(2)(a) and (3), Florida Statutes.


Headnotes

[1] An employer has the right of initial selection of a physician to provide medical care under Florida Statutes section 440.13(2)(a) and (3).

[2] A judge of compensation claims may order an evaluation by a specialist, but cannot authorize a healthcare provider to select the specialist if the employer has not forfei…

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

Key Quotes

“Section 440.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that the employer is to provide appropriate medical care. This duty under section 440.13(2)(a), when read in conjunction with section 440.13(3), gives the employer the right of initial selection of a physician.”

Establishes the legal principle that the employer has the right to initially select the physician providing medical care.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Claimant Everald Ebanks sustained a work-related injury and was treated by Dr. Levreault, a chiropractor. Dr. Levreault recommended that the claimant …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, the employer and carrier, assert several errors in this appeal of a workers’ compensation order.

We find all but one of the issues raised to be without merit and affirm without discussion. In his final order, the judge of compensation claims found that Dr. Levreault, claimant’s treating chiropractor, had recommended that claimant be evaluated by a neurologist or neurosurgeon.

We find no error in the order for evaluation as recommended by Dr. Levreault.1 However, we do agree that the judge erred when he authorized Dr. Levreault to select the neurologist or neurosurgeon to perform the evaluation.

Section 440.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that the employer is to provide appropriate medical care. This duty under section 440.13(2)(a), when read in conjunction with section 440.13(3), gives the employer the right of initial selection of a physician. See, Robinson v. Howard Hall Co., 219 So. 2d 688 (Fla.1969), and Polk County Board of Commissioners v. Varnado, 576 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Here, Dr. Levreault did not specify a particular physician, but made only a general recommendation for examination by a physician within the specialties mentioned. Absent a basis in the record for a departure from the established rule, we find no reason to deprive the employer of the right of initial selection of the physician to perform the evaluation.

Accordingly, the order under appeal is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part and is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith.

BOOTH, SMITH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. . Section 440.13(2)(a), as amended by Chapter 90-201, section 18, Laws of Florida (1990), effective July 1, 1990, requiring prior approval from the carrier or employer before referral by one health care provider to another health care provider, is not implicated in this case, since the referral is one ordered by the JCC, not a health care provider. We reject the E/C’s argument concerning lack of notice of the request for referral. The claim sought medical care and treatment for the accident through Dr. Lev-reault, who testified in his pre-trial deposition as to the need for the referral to a neurologist.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw