DONNIE L. BEASLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
M & E PIECO AND CIGNA INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
A workers' compensation judge dismissed a claimant's petition for chiropractic benefits. The Florida appellate court affirmed dismissal of the claim for payment of past medical bills (which were subject to utilization review) but reversed and remanded because the judge had jurisdiction over the underlying issue of whether the claimant was entitled to medical treatment, which he partially addressed at the hearing but failed to include in his written order.
The court affirmed dismissal of the claim for payment of Dr. Abeckjerr's past medical bills because that dispute over payment amounts was subject to utilization review. However, the court reversed and remanded because the judge had jurisdiction over the underlying issue of whether the claimant was entitled to receive chiropractic medical treatment, and the judge's failure to include his ruling on this issue in the written order constituted error.
[1] A judge of compensation claims lacks jurisdiction over a claim for payment of past medical bills when the matter has been submitted for utilization review.
[2] A judge of compensation claims has jurisdiction over the issue of ongoing medical treatment, including the authorization of such treatment.
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“the JCC had no jurisdiction over that claim”
Establishes that JCC lacked jurisdiction over payment disputes subject to utilization review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonnie Beasley sought workers' compensation benefits for chiropractic services provided by Dr. Abeckjerr on three separate days in May and June 1993. …
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 Treatment Authorization cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The judge of compensation claims (JCC) correctly dismissed claimant’s petition for benefits to the extent it sought payment of Dr. Abeckjerr’s bills for services rendered on three separate days in May and June 1993. After the employer/earrier (E/C) determined that the doctor was overutilizing chiropractic services, it submitted the matter to the Division of Workers’ Compensation for utilization review.
Consequently, the JCC had no jurisdiction over that claim. See Furtick v. William Shults Contractor, 664 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (affirming order dismissing claim for payment of past medical bills, because matter was subject to utilization review), review denied, 673 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1996), petition for cert, filed, 65 U.S.L.W. 3034 (U.S. July 8, 1996) (No. 96-42); Temers of Miami Corp. v. Freshwater, 599 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (en banc) (reversing order which resolved dispute between doctor and E/C concerning amount of payment for services, because JCC lacked jurisdiction); Carswell v. Broderick Constr., 583 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (affirming order dismissing request for payment of balance of medical bills, because JCC lacked jurisdiction); Lamounette v. Akins, 547 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (granting writ of prohibition to prohibit JCC from determining dispute between chiropractors and E/C over payment, because JCC lacked jurisdiction to resolve dispute).
Nevertheless, it was apparent at the hearing that claimant was also seeking medical treatment in the form of chiropractic care. The issue of medical care was one over which the JCC had jurisdiction. See Williams v. Triple J Enters., 650 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (reversing order denying reimbursement for prescriptions based on JCC’s belief that he lacked jurisdiction, because question of whether prescription was necessary was one for which JCC had jurisdiction); Wolk v. Jaylen Homes, Inc., 593 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (reversing dismissal of claim for chiropractic treatment entered based on lack of jurisdiction, because authorization of treatment was the real issue, not gouging).
The JCC did, in fact, pursue the medical issue at the conclusion of the hearing when he directed the E/C to offer three alternative chiropractors to claimant by the end of the business day. Although it was proper for the JCC to act on the medical issue over which he had jurisdiction, he failed to include that portion of his ruling in the written order. Accordingly, to the extent the order dismisses claimant’s petition, it was error as to the medical claim. We therefore reverse and remand for clarification as to the medical issue.
REVERSED and REMANDED for clarification.
ERVIN, KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wolk v. Jaylen Homes, Inc., 593 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Terners OF Miami Corp. & Atlas Gen. v. Freshwater, 599 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Emerson Williams v. Triple J Enters. & Erc, Inc., 650 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Carswell v. Broderick Constr. & State Farm Ins. Co., 583 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- G.L. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 547 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Lamounette v. Honorable Elwyn M. Akins, 547 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Edison M. Furtick, Jr. v. Contractor, 664 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)