MARRIOTT AND MARRIOTT CASUALTY CLAIMS, APPELLANT,
v.
RALPH CONDO, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, Marriott Corporation challenged the Judge of Compensation Claims' findings of an accident, causation, and award of future chiropractic care. The court affirmed the accident and causation findings but reversed the chiropractic care award due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the treatment was remedial or palliative.
The court affirmed the findings of accident and causation based on competent substantial evidence. However, the court reversed the award of future chiropractic care because there was no competent substantial evidence to support an award of palliative treatment, as the record did not establish whether the treatment was remedial or palliative, or whether it was necessitated by the accident versus a preexisting injury.
[1] An award of future medical treatment is improper without a showing of any residual injury from the accident.
[2] Palliative treatment for the relief of pain is awardable after a claimant has attained maximum medical improvement.
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“If the chiropractic treatment awarded is remedial treatment, then the treatment should be allowed until claimant reaches MMI. However, the chiropractor whom the JCC authorized to provide future treatment testified that claimant had reached MMI. If so, the treatment after claimant reached MMI was palliative treatment and required a showing that a permanent injury resulted from the exacerbation.”
Establishes the legal distinction between remedial and palliative treatment and the different standards for awarding each type.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant Ralph Condo alleged he suffered an accident and sought workers' compensation benefits. The parties stipulated that claimant had not reached m…
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
KAHN, Judge.
In this appeal from a workers’ compensation order, the employer/carrier Marriott Corporation and Marriott Casualty Claims challenge (1) the finding that claimant suffered an “accident,” (2) the finding of a causal relationship between the alleged accident and claimant’s physical condition, and (3) the award of future chiropractic care. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.
We affirm the order as to the findings of an accident and causation based on competent substantial evidence in the record supporting those findings. However, we are unable to tell from the record the type of future chiropractic care awarded by the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC). In the order, the JCC stated that the parties stipulated that claimant had not reached maximum medical improvement (MMI). The JCC awarded temporary total and temporary partial disability benefits based, in part, on that stipulation.
If the chiropractic treatment awarded is remedial treatment, then the treatment should be allowed until claimant reaches MMI.
However, the chiropractor whom the JCC authorized to provide future treatment testified that claimant had reached MMI. If so, the treatment after claimant reached MMI was palliative treatment and required a showing that a permanent injury resulted from the exacerbation. See Reynolds v. Neisner Brothers, Inc., 436 So. 2d 1070, 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (without a showing of any residual from the accident in question, an award for future medical treatment was improper); Baron Transport v. Riley, 491 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (palliative treatment for the relief of pain is awardable after a claimant has attained maximum medical improvement); Old Cove Condo v. Curry, 511 So. 2d 666, 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (same).
The chiropractor did not determine whether claimant’s disability rating and need for future treatment were based on the aggravation or the preexisting injury. No other doctor testified regarding the permanency of claimant’s injury as a result of the accident.
Accordingly, there is no competent substantial evidence to support an award of palliative future chiropractic care. We REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings on entitlement to future chiropractic care.
JOANOS and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
PAN Am. Hosp. & Sedgwick James of Fla. v. Noemi Fleitas, 645 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…or the period in question. All other aspects of the JCC’s order are affirmed. BOOTH, MICKLE and BENTON, JJ, concur. . Medical treatment provided after MMI has been reached is labeled as "palliative.” Marriott and Marriott Casualty Claims v. Condo, 632 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); citing, Old Cove Condo v. Curry, 511 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Keller Kitchen Cabinets v. Holder, 586 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), quashed on other grounds, 610 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 1992).…
Authorities Cited
- Valletto v. Dupree, 436 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- The OLD Cove Condo & W. Am. Ins. Co. v. Curry, 511 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Baron Transp. & Claims Ctr. v. Riley, 491 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)