CEM ENTERPRISES, INC., D/B/A SUNSHINE PAINTING, AND UNITED SELF INSURED SERVICES, APPELLANTS,
v.
PAUL THOMPSON, 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.
The court held that there was competent, substantial evidence to support the award of a handicap-accessible van as medically necessary, and therefore affirmed the award.
An employer and its servicing agent appealed an award of a handicap-accessible van to a claimant. The claimant's current vehicle was evaluated, and me…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence (Cse) cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, J.
The employer and its servicing agent (E/SA), CEM Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Sunshine Painting, and United Self Insured Services, assert legal error in the award of a handicap-accessible, full-size van to claimant, Paul Thompson. Nevertheless, this court’s standard of review is whether there is competent, substantial evidence (CSE) to support the finding that the van is medically necessary. Because there is CSE in the form of Dr. Creamer’s and Dr. Horn’s testimony, as well as that of those who evaluated claimant’s current vehicle, we affirm the award.
Having determined that the van is medically necessary, the judge of compensation claims properly denied the E/SA’s request for an offset or credit based on the value of claimant’s current vehicle. As explained in Applegate Drywall Co. v. Patrick, 559 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), the award of medically necessary medical apparatus under section 440.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2000), is not apportionable. This is not a case such as Temps & Co. Services v. Cremeens, 597 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), where only an automatic transmission and power steering are medically necessary. Rather, the entire van is medically required.
As for the issues claimant raised on cross-appeal, we likewise affirm. Although claimant’s wife, who provides the attendant care, is a licensed practical nurse, and she received additional training to help her care for claimant, there is record support for the JCC’s finding that only nonprofessional attendant care is medically required; therefore, the limitations set forth in section 440.13(2)(b) apply.
AFFIRMED.
ALLEN and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wash. Corr. Inst. v. Gross, 958 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…nado, 576 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The standard of review in a workers’ compensation case as to the medical necessity of awarded benefits is whether competent, substantial evidence supports the JCC’s ruling. See CEM Enters., Inc. v. Thompson, 859 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). In the instant case there was no'testimony in the record indicating that the heating pad was medically necessary to treat Claimant’s conditions. Additionally, the Claimant’s treating physician testified that oxygen supplementati…
Authorities Cited
- Applegate Drywall Co. & Md. Cas. Co. v. Patrick, 559 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Temps & Co. Servs. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cremeens, 597 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)