JOENNES GIL, APPELLANT,
v.
CARGO FORCE, INC. AND GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., 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 a workers' compensation case, the appellate court affirmed the denial of temporary partial disability benefits for the period when the claimant failed to comply with initially offered medical treatment, but reversed the denial for the post-mediation period after the parties agreed to authorize a spine specialist and the employer/carrier failed to schedule the appointment.
The court affirmed denial of benefits through August 8, 2013, based on medical noncompliance, but reversed the denial of benefits after August 8, 2013, because the employer/carrier, not the claimant, failed to take action to secure the agreed-upon medical care. Medical noncompliance does not result in permanent forfeiture of benefits and applies only during the period the claimant failed to take reasonable steps to secure care.
[1] A claimant's failure to take reasonable steps to secure medical care when first offered by the employer/carrier may result in the denial of temporary partial disability b…
[2] The doctrine of medical noncompliance does not result in the permanent forfeiture of workers' compensation benefits.
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“the doctrine of medical noncompliance does not result in the permanent forfeiture of benefits and will only apply during the period Claimant failed to take reasonable steps to secure medical care”
Establishes that medical noncompliance is not a permanent bar to workers' compensation benefits but applies only to specific periods of actual noncompliance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant was injured and entitled to workers' compensation benefits. The Employer/Carrier initially offered medical care, which Claimant failed to sec…
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
In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant appeals a final order denying him payment of temporary partial disability benefits (TPD) based on his medical noncompliance. Because the record contains competent substantial evidence supporting the Judge of Compensation Claims’ (JCC) finding that Claimant did not take reasonable steps to secure the medical care when first offered by the Employer/Carrier (E/C), we affirm that portion of the order denying benefits through the date of the mediation conference held on August 8, 2013. See Lobnitz v. Orange Mem’l Hosp., 126 So.2d 739 (Fla.1961) (reversing award of compensation for period when claimant absented herself from available medical treatment which could have ameliorated compensable skin condition).
The evidence, however, does not support a finding of noncompliance by Claimant after the August 8, 2013, mediation conference where the parties agreed to the authorization of a spine specialist, because the E/C took no action thereafter to set an appointment. The doctrine of medical noncompliance does not result in the permanent forfeiture of benefits and will only apply during the period Claimant failed to take reasonable steps to secure medical care. See Davis v. Marion County, 667 So.2d 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (stating Lobnitz does not support denial of medical benefits or forfeiture of future benefits after claimant makes herself available for medical examination).
Here, the E/C appeared to have adopted the position that it was no longer obliged to continue to offer medical care once Claimant failed to attend the originally scheduled appointments. As the JCC observed, it was “illogical” for the E/C to fail to set an appointment after the mediation conference resulting in an agreement on authorized care. The JCC, therefore, erred when he found Claimant was not entitled to payment of benefits based on noncompliance for the period after August 8, 2013. Accordingly, we REVERSE that portion of the final order denying Claimant payment of TPD benefits after August 8, 2013, and REMAND for additional proceedings consistent with this opinion.
LEWIS, C.J., WOLF and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Davidson v. City OF Coral Gables, 126 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 1961)
- Davis v. Marion Cnty. & Crawford & Co., 667 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)