FREDERICK WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
ONYX WASTE SERVICES OF FLORIDA AND SEDGWICK CMS, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the court held that an employer/carrier must furnish transportation to authorized medical appointments or pay the reasonable cost thereof, not because transportation itself is medically necessary, but because travel is incidental to medical care. The court affirmed the denial of permanent total disability benefits and the motion to disqualify, but reversed the denial of transportation benefits.
A workers' compensation carrier must furnish transportation to authorized medical appointments or pay the reasonable cost thereof because travel is incidental to medical care, not because transportation itself is medical care. Transportation to medical appointments does not have to be independently medically necessary. The JCC's denial was improper.
[1] A workers' compensation carrier must furnish transportation to authorized medical appointments or pay the reasonable cost thereof, as travel is incidental to medical care…
[2] Transportation to medical appointments in a workers' compensation case does not require an independent medical necessity for the transportation itself.
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 intelligence“It is well-settled law that a workers' compensation carrier must either furnish transportation to authorized medical appointments or pay the reasonable cost thereof — because travel is incidental to medical care, not because the transportation itself is medical care or attendance.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that transportation is the carrier's obligation based on its incidental nature to medical treatment, not on transportation being medical care itself.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant Frederick Williams sought workers' compensation benefits including permanent total disability, transportation to medical appointments, and fi…
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 Necessity cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) that denies permanent total disability (PTD) benefits, transportation to medical appointments, and a motion to disqualify filed against the JCC. We affirm the JCC’s denial of PTD benefits and the motion to disqualify without comment. We reverse the denial of transportation to medical appointments because the JCC improperly required Claimant to prove that transportation itself was medically necessary, a conclusion contrary to the settled law on the issue.
Here, Claimant, who concedes that he is physically capable of driving, filed a claim for transportation to authorized medical appointments because his car was broken down and he lacked reliable transportation. The JCC concluded that the Employer/Carrier (E/C) is not responsible for Claimant’s transportation to medical ap-*142pointraents or the cost thereof and denied same, because no doctor wrote a prescription for transportation to medical appointments, and Claimant was not medically restricted from driving.
It is well-settled law that a workers’ compensation carrier must either furnish transportation to authorized medical appointments or pay the reasonable cost thereof — because travel is incidental to medical care, not because the transportation itself is medical care or attendance. See Mobley v. Jack & Son Plumbing, 170 So.2d 41 (Fla.1964); see also Remington v. City of Ocala, 940 So.2d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Sam’s Club v. Bair, 678 So.2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Accordingly, transportation to medical appointments does not, itself, have to be independently medically necessary. See Bair, 678 So.2d at 904. Because the JCC improperly denied transportation to medical appointments or the cost thereof, we reverse and remand. On remand, the JCC shall enter an order providing that the E/C is responsible for transportation to medical appointments or the reasonable cost thereof, with the E/C having the first opportunity to determine the means of transportation. See generally, Polk County v. Vanado, 576 So.2d 833, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (explaining policy of allowing E/C first opportunity to determine means and methods of providing medical benefits).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED, in part, and REMANDED for additional proceedings.
VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Polk Cnty. Bd. OF Comm'rs & Home Ins. Co. v. Emmett F. Varnado, 576 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Bragdon v. Gen. Spray Co. OF S. Fla. & Iowa Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. & Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 170 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1964)
- Sam's Club & Claims Mgmt., Inc. v. Bair, 678 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Theron Remington v. City OF Ocala/United Self Insured, 940 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)