CLARENCE BELCHER, APPELLANT,
v.
DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, APPELLEE
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.
Appellant Clarence Belcher appealed a worker's compensation order denying his claim for bathtub rails and other household items following a compensable back and leg injury. The court reversed and remanded, finding the judge of compensation claims may have overlooked evidence that bathtub rails would be medically necessary given appellant's large bathtub.
The court reversed and remanded because the judge of compensation claims appears to have overlooked or ignored evidence that bathtub rails would be medically necessary if the bathtub was large, combined with appellant's testimony that his tub was indeed large.
[1] A judge of compensation claims must reconsider a claim for bathtub rails when the record suggests the judge overlooked or ignored relevant evidence regarding the necessit…
[2] A treating physician's testimony that bathtub rails would improve safety and reduce the risk of further injury is relevant to a claim for such items, even if the physicia…
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“Because it appears that the judge of compensation claims overlooked or ignored certain evidence, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of the claim for bathtub rails.”
Establishes the core basis for reversal—that the judge failed to adequately consider available evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant suffered compensable back and leg injuries while working for the Dade County School Board in December 1992. Appellant requested bathtub rail…
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 Compensable Accident cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals a worker’s compensation order which denied his claim for certain household items, the services of a maid, attorney’s fees and costs. Specifically, appellant seeks reversal of that part of the order which denied his claim for bathtub rails. Because it appears that the judge of compensation claims overlooked or ignored certain evidence, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of the claim for bathtub rails.
While working for the Dade County School Board, appellant suffered back and leg injuries in a compensable accident in December 1992. Appellant contends that his condition as a result of his industrial accident makes it difficult for him to enter and exit the bathtub. Therefore, among other things, appellant requested rails for his bathtub. Appel-lee argued in response that the tub rails, as well as the other items sought, were not medically necessary.
Dr. Christian Keedy, M.D., appellant’s treating physician, testified in deposition that tub rails would improve safety, thereby reducing the risk of further injury to appellant’s back. Dr. Keedy conceded, upon being further questioned, that rails were not a medical necessity in the instant case. The JCC also had before him the testimony of Dr. Basil Yates, M.D., who testified initially that bathtub rails were not a medical necessity in this ease. Later in his testimony, however, Dr. Yates agreed that tub rails would be a medical necessity if appellant’s bathtub was a large one. At the hearing, appellant verified that he has a large tub.
In denying the claim for tub rails, the JCC specifically relied upon testimony of Drs. Keedy and Yates that such was not a medical necessity. It appears that the JCC may have overlooked the testimony of Dr. Yates, as above noted, in which he qualified his testimony by allowing that rails would be necessary for a large tub, and the testimony of the claimant that his tub was large. Accordingly, we find it necessary to remand this case so that the judge may reconsider Dr. Yates’ testimony and award bathtub rails as requested, or explain his rejection of this testimony. See, Yeargin Construction Co. v. Hutchinson, 547 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SMITH, WOLF and MICKLE, JJ., concur.