Bishop v. Pinellas Framing & Finishing, AF-402
| Decision Date | 26 May 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. AF-402,AF-402 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Charles R. BISHOP, Appellant, v. PINELLAS FRAMING & FINISHING and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (1) and Current Builders, Inc., and Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. (2), Appellees. |
Peter H. Dubbeld of Watson, Goldstein, Earle, Douglass & Dubbeld, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Susan R. Whaley and Richard D. Senty of MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellees Pinellas Framing and Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
Robert M. Todd of Lyle & Skipper, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellees Current Builders, Inc. and Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
Claimant suffered compensable industrial injuries on October 17, 1969, and October 10, 1977. On August 27, 1980, an order was entered by the deputy commissioner awarding permanent partial disability benefits for a 30% disability to the body as a whole. Although claimant had been treated for psychiatric problems prior to the hearing, no claim was made that the problems were caused by the industrial accidents, and the issue was not addressed by the deputy in his order. In January of 1981 the claimant began seeing Dr. Fireman, and for the first time became aware that his psychiatric problems might be attributable to his industrial accidents. On January 5, 1981, he filed a claim for psychiatric treatment. The employer/carrier defended on the ground that the claim for psychiatric attention filed subsequent to the 1980 order must be brought by way of a petition to modify pursuant to section 440.28, Florida Statutes (1977).
We note that when the August 27, 1980, order was entered the claimant was suffering from a psychiatric disability for which he chose not to make a claim. It is his position that, until he visited Dr. Fireman in January of 1981, he had no basis upon which to associate his psychiatric disabilities with his industrial accident. Upon being informed by Dr. Fireman that there was a causal connection between the accidents and the psychiatric problems, the claimant made his initial claim for psychiatric treatment. The claimant's argument has a degree of logic, but it runs counter to the basic legal concept that the law frowns upon piecemeal litigation. Hunt v. International Minerals and Chemical Corp., 410 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We recognize that in workers' compensation cases rules are relaxed. Nevertheless, we agree with the deputy commissioner that when a date of maximum medical...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keller Kitchen Cabinets v. Holder, 88-3204
...289, 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Washington v. Dade County School Board, IRC Order 2-3694 (Feb. 8, 1979); Bishop v. Pinellas Framing & Finishing, 414 So.2d 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). 5 In Robinson v. JDM Country Club, 455 So.2d 1077, 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), we stated: Modification is the statu......
-
Pitts v. Nimnicht Chevrolet, 89-1455
...denied, additional claims for benefits must be made by way of a section 440.28 petition for modification. Bishop v. Pinellas Framing & Finishing, 414 So.2d 596, 597 (Fla. 1st DCA), review dismissed, 419 So.2d 1195 (Fla.1982). Such modification may be undertaken upon initiative of the deputy......
-
Robinson v. JDM Country Club, AV-406
...party, provided the deputy finds that there has been a change of condition or a mistake of fact." Bishop v. Pinellas Framing and Finishing, 414 So.2d 596, 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), pet. for rev. dism. 419 So.2d 1195 (Fla.1982). Here, the evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated that the ......
-
Escambia County Transit v. Stallworth, 94-1287
...569 So.2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Robinson v. JDM Country Club, 455 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Bishop v. Pinellas Framing & Finishing, 414 So.2d 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. dismissed, 419 So.2d 1195 (Fla.1982). Once the claim was treated as a petition for modification, however, the ......