Boggs v. Usa Water Ski, Inc., No. 1D08-1515.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Per Curiam |
| Citation | 18 So.3d 610 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D08-1515. |
| Decision Date | 13 May 2009 |
| Parties | Tari BOGGS, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. USA WATER SKI, INC. and The Claims Center, Appellees/Cross-Appellants. |
v.
USA WATER SKI, INC. and The Claims Center, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
[18 So.3d 611]
Laurie T. Miles of Smith, Feddeler, Smith & Miles, P.A., Lakeland, and Susan W. Fox of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Harold E. Barker and E. Taylor Davidson, Lakeland, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal, Claimant raises three issues, one of which relates to the apportionment of future medical care, and two relating to the denial of disability benefits for three discrete periods. On cross-appeal, the employer/carrier challenges the Judge of Compensations Claims' (JCC) reliance on the opinion of Claimant's independent medical examiner as to major contributing cause. We affirm the JCC's allowance for apportionment only because Claimant's arguments raised on appeal were not preserved. We also affirm the denial of disability benefits for one discrete period (October 21, 2006, through May 13, 2007), and the issue on cross-appeal because the JCC's findings are supported
by competent, substantial evidence. However, we reverse the JCC's denial of temporary total disability benefits (TTD) for the periods of October 19 & 20, 2006, and May 14, 2007, through December 31, 2007.
Claimant suffered a workplace accident on August 17, 2006, which resulted in a compensable aggravation of a preexisting condition. Thereafter, Claimant was placed on no-work status by her treating chiropractor, Dr. Munday, through October 20, 2006. The E/C began providing benefits under the 120-day rule outlined in section 440.20(4), Florida Statutes (2006). On October 10, 2006 (while Claimant was on no-work status), the Employer offered Claimant a light-duty job which Claimant declined because she had not been returned to work by her doctor. Claimant was terminated on October 15, 2006, because the Employer needed to fill Claimant's position. On October 16, 2006, the E/C controverted the case in its entirety.
Claimant continued to receive medical care on her own, and ultimately underwent a surgical procedure with Dr. Latif on May 14, 2007. Dr. Latif placed Claimant on no-work status from May 14, 2007, through December 31, 2007. Claimant filed petitions for benefits for authorization and payment of past and future medical care (including treatment with Dr. Latif) and for payment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hidden v. Day & Zimmerman, No. 1D16–1045.
...Children, 43 So.3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ; Carmack v. Dep't of Agric., 31 So.3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) ; Boggs v. USA Water Ski, Inc., 18 So.3d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) ; Parodi, supra. Claimant is correct that, in each of those cases, the employer/carrier involved provided at least some ......
-
Hidden v. Day & Zimmerman, No. 1D16–1045.
...Children, 43 So.3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ; Carmack v. Dep't of Agric., 31 So.3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) ; Boggs v. USA Water Ski, Inc., 18 So.3d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) ; Parodi, supra. Claimant is correct that, in each of those cases, the employer/carrier involved provided at least some ......