HMSHOST CORPORATION/GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
GUERDA FREDERIC, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse One-Time Change Of Physician cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation case, the Employer/Carrier appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) awarding Claimant her own selection of a “one-time” change of physician under section 440.13(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2009). We reverse because, although we agree with the JCC that Claimant’s purported petition for benefits constituted the “written request” required by section 440.13(2)(f), we hold the JCC erred in finding the Employer/Carrier (E/C) did not comply with the request within the five days section 440.13(2)(f) allows. The E/C’s informing Claimant of a particular doctor’s name within five days of receiving the request satisfied section 440.13(2)(f), even though the E/C did not contact the doctor. See Dorsch, Inc. v. Hunt, 15 So.3d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Harrell v. Citrus County Sch. Bd., 25 So.3d 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). We distinguish Pardo v. Denny’s, Inc., 631 So.2d 388. (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), on the ground that its facts involved the initial provision of care rather than, as here, the transfer of care.
REVERSED.
WOLF, LEWIS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Debrah Gadol v. Masoret Yehudit, 132 So. 3d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ange of physician, without regard to medical necessity. See Sunbelt Health Care v. Galva, 7 So. 3d 556, 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). A PFB can constitute the “written request of the employee.” See HMSHOST Corp./Gallagher Bassett Servs. Inc. v. Frederic, 102 So. 3d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). An E/C timely responds by informing the claimant of the new doctor’s name; a timely response does not require the E/C to actually contact or schedule an appointment with the new doctor. See id. The five-day response period in th…
-
Agustin Bustamante v. Amber Constr. Co. & Am. Interstate Ins. Co., 118 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…g an appointment. “Based on the plain reading of the statute, an E/C is required, however, to authorize at least one specific physician within five days of a claimant’s request.” Id. at 678. Additional support is found in HMSHost Corp. v. Frederic, 102 So. 3d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). This court reversed the JCC’s finding that the E/C had not timely authorized a change in physician. Id. “The E/C’s informing Claimant of a particular doctor’s name within five days of receiving the request satisfied section 440.…
-
City of Bartow & Commercial Risk Mgmt. v. Isidro Flores (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…nt of authorization— the “flip side” of Frederic); Hinzman v. Winter Haven Facility Operations LLC, 109 So. 3d 256, 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding the five-day response period refers to calendar days, not business days); HMSHost Corp. v. Frederic, 102 So. 3d 668, 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“E/C’s informing Claimant of a particular doctor’s name within five days of receiving the request satisfied section 440.13(2)(f), even though the E/C did not contact the doctor.”); Harrell v. Citrus Cty. Sch. Bd., 25 So. 3d…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Harrell v. Citrus Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Fsbit Ins. Tr., 25 So. 3d 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Graham v. State, 631 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Pardo v. Denny's, Inc., 631 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Dorsch, Inc. v. Hunt, 15 So. 3d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)