BENNY SORTINO, APPELLANT,
v.
COMMERCIAL CARRIER CORPORATION AND COMCAR, 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.
The court affirmed the judge of compensation claims' denial of further medical treatment including spinal fusion, finding that the claimant's immediate problems resulted from a subsequent 1994 intervening accident rather than the original 1986 compensable injury, though the employer and carrier remain obligated to provide continuing conservative care if the claimant's condition returns to pre-1994 status.
A workers' compensation claimant's claim for further medical treatment including spinal fusion is properly denied when the claimant's immediate problems result from a subsequent intervening accident rather than the original compensable injury.
[1] A subsequent intervening accident breaking the causal chain between the original compensable injury and current medical conditions may support denial of further medical t…
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 intelligenceAppellant suffered a compensable work accident in 1986 and sought authorization for further medical treatment including spinal fusion. In 1994, appell…
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 Workers' Compensation Claim For Medical Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Based on a 1986 compensable accident, appellant made a claim for further medical treatment as the nature of his injury and the process of recovery requires, including authorization of a specific physician to perform a spinal fusion. After considering the evidence, the judge of compensation claims (JCC) allowed payment of certain outstanding medical bills but denied the claim for further medical treatment, including the spinal fusion. The JCC found that claimant’s immediate problems were the result of a subsequent intervening accident in 1994. The evidence shows that as of 1994, claimant continued to receive authorized medical care provided by the appellees. The JCC’s findings concerning the subsequent intervening accident are supported by competent substantial evidence and affirmed. The employer and carrier acknowledge that if appellant’s condition ever returns to his pre-1994 status, they would still be obligated to provide continuing conservative care. Accordingly, even though the order on its face purported to deny further medical treatment as the nature of the injury and the process of recovery requires, the order should be read in light of the employer/carrier’s concession, both in their brief and at oral argument, concerning their obligation to provide future care.
As explained here, the order is AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD, C.J., and KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.