REBA Y. SPACAL (SUTTON), APPELLANT,
v.
MARTIN MARIETTA AND SCOTT WETZEL SERVICES, INC., 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.
An employer/carrier authorized surgery must provide remedial treatment for complications arising from that surgery.
[1] An employer/carrier that authorizes surgery is required to provide any remedial treatment and care necessitated by that surgery or its complications.
[2] An employee may recover medical benefits for a new injury that results from authorized treatment of an existing injury.
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 intelligenceClaimant suffered complications from an authorized surgery, including hernia and bowel obstruction. The judge of compensation claims denied the reques…
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 Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, Judge.
The claimant in this case appeals from a final order in which the judge of compensation claims (JCC) denied claimant’s request for surgery to correct complications she is suffering as a result of an approved surgical procedure. We find that an employer/earrier (E/C) which has authorized surgery is required to provide any remedial treatment and care which is necessitated as a result of the authorized surgery or complications thereof. We, therefore, reverse and remand for further findings as to the E/C’s responsibility to provide the requested medical treatment.
Claimant was injured in a compensable accident in 1982. She reached maximum medical improvement in 1987 with no permanent impairment rating. The employer/carrier authorized a stomach stapling procedure in November of 1990. There is no explanation in the record as to why the E/C approved this surgery. Claimant developed complications which are alleged to be the result of this surgery, including hernia, hemorrhoids, violent vomiting, bowel obstruction, and other related problems. No testimony was presented concerning a causal relationship between the original compensable injury and the requested treatment. The JCC denied the claim on this basis. Medical testimony was presented, however, that the need for the requested treatment was causally related to the first surgery, and that additional surgery would be needed to alleviate the problems. The JCC did not make any factual findings concerning those matters.
An employee may recover medical benefits for any new injury which results from authorized treatment of an existing injury. Royal Palm, Market v. Lutz, 126 So. 2d 881 (Fla.1961). See also Abbenante v. UPS, 241 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1970). The JCC, therefore, erred in restricting the inquiry to whether the requested medical treatment was causally related to the initial accident and not determining the causal relationship between the first authorized surgery and the present request for treatment.
Reversed and remanded.
ERVIN and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bysczynski v. United Parcel Servs., Inc., 53 So. 3d 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…spine which contributed to Claimant’s need for the surgery were the natural sequela of the compensable surgery for the 2005 accident and injuries, which our case law instructs becomes part of the compensable injury. See Spacal (Sutton) v. Marietta, 642 So. 2d 46, 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (holding E/C is required to provide any remedial treatment and care which is necessitated by authorized surgery or complications thereof). Under these facts, the JCC erred by including Claimant’s normal, aged condition as a c…
Authorities Cited
- Abbenante v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 241 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1970)
- Royal Palm Mkt. & Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co. v. William L. Lutz & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 126 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1961)