HIALEAH HOSPITAL AND TOTURA AND COMPANY, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
SERGIO LORENZO, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the award of medical benefits for cardiac problems but reversed the wage loss benefits award because the trial judge failed to make an explicit finding of maximum medical improvement from a chiropractic standpoint before awarding those benefits.
Wage loss benefits cannot be awarded without an explicit finding of maximum medical improvement from the relevant medical specialty.
[1] Wage loss benefits in workers' compensation cases require an explicit finding of maximum medical improvement before they may be awarded.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA workers' compensation claimant sought medical and wage loss benefits for cardiac and chiropractic-related injuries. The judge of compensation claims…
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 Care cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
The parties appeal and cross-appeal a workers’ compensation order awarding, inter alia, medical benefits and wage loss benefits. The employer/carrier (E/C) assert that the award of medical benefits relating to the claimant’s perceived cardiac problems was not supported by competent substantial evidence. The claimant argiies that wage loss benefits were improperly awarded without a finding of maximum medical improvement (MMI) from a chiropractic standpoint. We affirm on the first issue and reverse on the second.
The judge of compensation claims (JCC) signed a sloppily written and internally inconsistent order, apparently drafted by the claimant’s trial attorney,1 in which she accepted one chiropractor’s opinion over that of another but did not make an explicit finding regarding whether claimant has reached MMI from a chiropractic standpoint, and awarded both wage loss benefits from the date of neurological MMI and remedial chiropractic care. It is not the function of this court in such a situation to attempt to discover what the JCC actually intended.
The order is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the JCC for a determination of whether claimant has reached chiropractic MMI; if so, for a determination of whether he is entitled to palliative chiropractic care for his continued pain; and if not, for a reclassification of the wage loss benefits awarded to temporary partial disability benefits.
ALLEN, J., and SHIVERS, Senior Judge, concur. . Claimant's counsel on appeal was different from his trial counsel.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
NEW Hope Baptist Church & Guideone Ins. v. Duran, 38 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…interest as to the payment made December 29, 2008, and that, because Claimant agrees he was overpaid on that date by an amount greater than five dollars, five dollars of that payment is hereby reclassified as interest. Cf. Hialeah Hosp. v. Lorenzo, 677 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (remanding for determination of whether claimant reached MMI and, if not, for reclassification of wage loss benefits to TPD benefits). The E/C’s second argument on appeal, based on Mieses v. Applebee’s, 14 So. 3d 1228 (Fla. 1st…