Circle K. Corp. v. Lackey, 93-1484
Decision Date | 01 June 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 93-1484,93-1484 |
Citation | 637 So.2d 360 |
Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D1198 CIRCLE K CORPORATION and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Appellants, v. Joan LACKEY, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael Broussard and John W. Wuchner of Broussard, Condry & Willett, P.A., Orlando, for appellants.
Dennis Smejkal, Orlando and Bill McCabe, Longwood, for appellee.
In this workers' compensation case, the employer and servicing agent seek review of an order awarding claimant permanent total disability benefits. They raise two issues: (1) whether the award is erroneous because the judge of compensation claims overlooked or ignored evidence that claimant had not yet reached maximum medical improvement; and (2) whether the award is irreconcilable with an order entered on the same day which directed that claimant submit to an orthopedic evaluation and "possible further work-up." We conclude that there is competent, substantial evidence in the record from which one might conclude that claimant was permanently and totally disabled. However, because we are unable to discern from the record the purpose of the order directing that claimant submit to an orthopedic evaluation and "possible further work-up," we are constrained to reverse, and to remand for clarification.
It is not clear from the order directing that claimant submit to an orthopedic evaluation and "possible further work-up" whether the intended purpose was remedial, palliative or both. "The date of [maximum medical improvement] marks the point after which no further recovery or improvement from an injury or disease can be reasonably anticipated." Kirkland v. Harold Pratt Paving, Inc., 518 So.2d 1320, 1323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So.2d 878 (Fla.1988). Accordingly, an order directing further medical evaluations or treatment with a remedial purpose in mind is logically inconsistent with a finding of maximum medical improvement. See Florida Structures, Inc. v. Morton, 443 So.2d 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). However, "[p]alliative treatment for the relief of pain is awardable after a claimant has attained maximum medical improvement." Baron Transport v. Riley, 491 So.2d 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Accordingly, medical evaluations aimed at determining whether palliative treatment might be appropriate would not be inconsistent with a finding of maximum medical improvement. Because we are unable to divine from the record the intent behind the order...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anderson & Padgett Sawmill v. Collins, 96-702
...award of PTD benefits and remand the case with directions for the JCC to clarify the nature of the treatment. See Circle K Corp. v. Lackey, 637 So.2d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The E/SA alternatively argues, assuming the treatment is considered palliative, that PTD benefits should not have be......
-
Edward Debartolo Corp. v. Kay
...not yet at maximum medical improvement and an award of permanent and total disability benefits is premature. See Circle K Corp. v. Lackey, 637 So.2d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). We are unable to determine from the order or the record whether the evaluation is for remedial or palliative care. Th......