SOUTHLAND CORPORATION AND KEMPER GROUP, APPELLANTS,
v.
DIANE KNAPP, 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, the employer/carrier challenged a judge's award of temporary disability and medical benefits to an injured worker. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the employer failed to offer reasonable alternative treatment and that competent evidence supported the worker's temporary total disability claim.
The court affirmed, holding that competent substantial evidence supported the JCC's findings that the employer/carrier did not offer reasonable alternative treatment, the claimant had adequate notice of the disability issue through Dr. Sunter's deposition testimony, and the JCC properly accepted the treating physician's testimony regarding the claimant's ability to work.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims does not abuse discretion by ordering an employer/carrier to pay for a neurologist's bill when the employer/carrier's offered alternative t…
[2] A Judge of Compensation Claims may adjudicate an issue not formally pleaded if the opposing party had adequate notice and would not be prejudiced by its adjudication.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Competent substantial evidence supports the JCC's finding that the E/C's actions with regard to the claimant's request for treatment by a neurologist did not constitute an offer of reasonable alternatives for treatment, and that he therefore did not abuse his discretion in ordering the E/C to pay Dr. Sunter's bill.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing employer's obligation to pay for unilaterally obtained medical treatment and the court's affirmance of the JCC's finding regarding reasonable alternative treatment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDiane Knapp, a claimant, requested treatment by Dr. Sunter, a neurologist. The employer/carrier did not offer reasonable alternative care and the clai…
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 Medical Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
The employer/carrier (E/C) appeal a worker’s compensation order awarding temporary disability and medical benefits. They contend that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) abused his discretion in finding them responsible for the bills of Dr. Sunter, a neurologist, asserting that the claimant unilaterally obtained his treatment after they offered her alternative care, without seeking prior approval by the JCC. They contend that the JCC abused his discretion in awarding temporary total disability (TTD) benefits after April 21, 1993 (when Dr. Sunter began treating her), because the issue was not raised in the claimant’s pleadings and they did not consent to have the issue tried at the hearing.
Finally, they argue that the JCC’s finding that the claimant was temporarily totally disabled for the period in question was not supported by competent substantial evidence, asserting that Dr. Sunter’s opinion was outweighed by the testimony of two other doctors.
We affirm.
Competent substantial evidence supports the JCC’s finding that the E/C’s actions with regard to the claimant’s request \for treatment by a neurologist did not constitute an offer of reasonable alternatives for treatment, and that he therefore did not abuse his discretion in ordering the E/C to pay Dr. Sunter’s bill. See Colace v. Hamlet Estates, Ltd., 573 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Lovell Bros. v. Kittles, 518 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
The E/C’s reliance on Usher v. Cothron, 445 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) and Wackenhut v. Freilich, 464 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) is misplaced. In those eases the E/C offered alternatives for treatment, and there was no finding that the E/C’s actions were not reasonable. Notwithstanding that the claimant did not file a formal claim for TTD benefits for the period in question, but instead filed claims for “full temporary partial wage loss benefits without use of the 80/80 rule as claimant is unable to earn wages, salary or other remuneration for the period 12/4/92 through 12-17-92 and continuing” and “in the alternative to full temporary partial disability benefits, payment of wage loss benefits for the period 12/4/92 through 12-17-92 and continuing,” the E/C had adequate notice of the issue before the hearing from Dr. Sunter’s deposition testimony that claimant had not been able to work since he began treating her. Competent substantial evidence supports the JCC’s findings that the issue was ripe for adjudication and that the E/C would not be prejudiced by the issue being heard. The JCC did not abuse his discretion in accepting the testimony of Dr. Sunter, the claimant’s treating physician, over that of two other doctors with regard to her ability to work during the period in question.
AFFIRMED. The claimant’s motion for appellate attorney fees is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the Judge of Compensation Claims for determination of the amount of a reasonable fee.
KAHN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Burton v. Sonoma Int'l, 464 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- E.T. Usher & Prof'l Administrators, Inc. v. Cothron, 445 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Colace v. Hamlet Ests., Ltd., 573 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Lovell Bros., Inc. v. Kittles, 518 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)