MCDONALD'S AND FLORIDA HOSPITALITY MUTUAL INSURANCE, APPELLANTS,
v.
DILCIA LOPEZ, 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 the employer/carrier is not liable for chiropractic treatments exceeding twenty-four sessions without carrier authorization.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims may award payment for chiropractic services in excess of twenty-four treatments only if the carrier authorizes additional treatment.
[2] Chiropractic services rendered beyond twenty-four treatments or twelve weeks from the initial treatment are presumed not to be medically necessary unless authorized by th…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant injured her back at work and received approximately sixty chiropractic treatments. The employer/carrier only authorized treatment for her wri…
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 Worker'S Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The employer/earrier (E/C) challenge the Judge of Compensation Claims’ (JCC) final order on four grounds. We affirm three of these grounds without discussion because competent, substantial evidence supports the JCC’s findings of fact. As to the fourth ground for relief, the E/C argue that the JCC erred in awarding payment for more than twenty-four chiropractic treatments. We agree.
Claimant was injured on May 4, 2005, when she fell at work; she broke her wrist and elbow and hurt her back and complained of both at the hospital that day. However, the E/C authorized doctors only for her wrist and elbow. Claimant thereafter went to chiropractor Dr. Friedman approximately sixty times for back treatment and filed a petition for benefits seeking authorization for that treatment. Ultimately, the JCC found Dr. Friedman was authorized, in relevant part, by section 440.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2005), and he ordered the E/C to pay all of Dr. Friedman’s past bills and Claimant’s attorney’s fees.
The JCC erred in awarding payment for more than twenty-four treatments with Dr. Friedman because there is no evidence that such extended treatment was authorized by the carrier. Under section 440.13(2)(c), the JCC is empowered to award only that care which is reasonable and medically necessary. Section 440.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), provides in part that “medically necessary treatment, care, and attendance does not include chiropractic services in excess of twenty-four treatments or rendered twelve weeks beyond the date of the initial chiropractic treatment, whichever comes first, unless the carrier authorizes additional treatment....” Consequently, Dr. Friedman’s authorization would have lapsed after twenty-four treatments. For this reason, we reverse the award of payment for treatment with Dr. Friedman beyond the twenty-fourth treatment. The JCC’s order is affirmed in all other respects.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WEBSTER, LEWIS, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.