THOMAS THOMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
M.S. AND S. TOYOTA, INC. D/B/A PHIL SMITH TOYOTA AND PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION FOR PROFIT, AND HON. MILY RODRIGUEZ-POWELL, AS JUDGE OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS, 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.
Thomas sought declaratory relief challenging the constitutionality of a Florida statute limiting chiropractic treatment to 18 visits in workers' compensation cases. Rather than appeal the compensation judge's denial of further treatment, Thomas filed this separate declaratory action hoping to get a different appellate result. The court affirmed dismissal, finding the compensation order was res judicata.
The court affirmed, holding that the compensation judge's order is res judicata and binding on the issue of chiropractic treatment entitlement. Even if the statute were found unconstitutional, Thomas would still be bound by the prior workers' compensation order, leaving no justiciable controversy for declaratory relief.
[1] A statutory limit on chiropractic treatment in workers' compensation cases is constitutional.
[2] A final order in a workers' compensation case is subject to the principles of res judicata.
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“Final orders in workers' compensation cases "are subject to the same principles of res judicata as are applied to judgments of courts."”
Establishes that compensation orders have binding res judicata effect, preventing relitigation of issues already decided.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas sustained a work-related injury covered by workers' compensation. His employer paid for 18 chiropractic treatments and then exercised its statu…
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 Constitutionality Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant sustained a work related injury covered by workers’ compensation. After the employer had paid for more than eighteen chiropractor treatments, it exercised its right under section 440.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), to stop paying for any further chiropractic treatment. The statute limits chiropractic care to eighteen treatments unless the carrier authorizes it or the employee is catastrophically injured. The judge of compensation claims denied appellant’s request for further chiropractic treatment, and appellant did not appeal that order. Instead he filed this action for declaratory relief; arguing that the statute is unconstitutional. We affirm.
In Strohm v. Hertz Corp., 685 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) the first district upheld the statutory limit on chiropractic treatment in a challenge to its constitutionality. Apparently, in order to avoid the same fate as the claimant in Strohm, appellant did not appeal the order denying his claim to the first district, in the hopes that he could get this court to disagree with Strohm and hold the statute unconstitutional.
Final orders in workers’ compensation cases “are subject to the same principles of res judicata as are applied to judgments of courts.” Nelson & Co. v. Holtzclaw, 566 So. 2d 307, 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (citing Wellcraft Marine Corp. v. Turner, 435 So. 2d 864, 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)). The order of the judge of compensation claims, determining that appellant was not entitled to any more chiropractic treatment, is therefore res judicata as to that issue. There is thus no controversy, because even if the court were to hold the statute unconstitutional, appellant would still be bound by the worker’s compensation order determining that he could get no further chiropractic treatment. We therefore affirm.
SHAHOOD, J., concurs.
POLEN, J., concurs specially with opinion.
POLEN, J.,
concurring specially.
I agree with the majority’s determination as to the finality of the judge of compensation claims’ order relating to the exhaustion of chiropractic treatment. That order, however, does not appear to dispose of the question whether the claimant is in need of, or entitled to, treatment from some other type of health-care practitioner. It would seem to me, although neither party has raised the issue in this appeal, that appellant could still make such a claim before the judge of compensation claims, if not otherwise time-barred.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wellcraft Marine Corp. & Crawford & Co. v. Turner, 435 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Nelson & Co. & Executive Risk Consultants, Inc. v. Holtzclaw, 566 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Strohm v. The HERTZ Corporation/HERTZ Claim Mgmt., 685 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)