Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Fox, TT-342
| Decision Date | 19 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. TT-342,TT-342 |
| Citation | 400 So.2d 154 |
| Parties | COMMERCIAL CARRIER CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Willard A. FOX, Sr., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Wendell J. Kiser, of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, Orlando, for appellant.
Joseph L. Thury, of Antinori & Thury, P. A., Tampa, for appellee.
Employer appeals a workers' compensation order awarding claimant payment of medical treatment provided by his hometown physician whom the employer refused to authorize. We affirm the order.
Claimant, a Brooksville resident, suffered a compensable back injury which continues to cause severe pain. Although claimant repeatedly requested the employer to furnish him with medical treatment in the Brooksville area, the employer insisted on referring the claimant to physicians located in Tampa or Lakeland, each approximately 50 miles from Brooksville. The employer refused to authorize treatment by a local physician until approximately 11 months after claimant's injury when the employer inexplicably authorized treatment by Dr. Escamilla of Brooksville, whose practice is limited to obstetrics and gynecology. At the hearing below, the sole issue before the deputy commissioner was whether the employer was required to pay the medical bills of a Brooksville physician, Dr. House, from whom claimant received both emergency and remedial treatment without authorization. The deputy commissioner found the employer refused to authorize medical treatment and that Dr. House's treatment was reasonable and necessary, and awarded payment of his medical bills by the employer.
There is competent, substantial evidence in the record to affirm the finding that the employer refused to authorize medical treatment and that the employer carrier should be required to pay Dr. House's medical bill. The deputy commissioner found there was competent orthopedic treatment available in the Brooksville area and reasonably concluded, based upon competent evidence, that the employer should not require the claimant, who has a painful back aggravated by riding long distances, to travel unnecessarily to Tampa or Lakeland to obtain treatment which could be furnished in Brooksville. Since claimant was suffering from a severe arthritic condition superimposed on his back condition and was in need of emergency care, he properly received treatment from Dr. House, a family practitioner in Brooksville, and the deputy commissioner was correct in awarding payment of Dr. House's medical bills associated with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watson v. Freeman Decorating Co.
...resolving a good cause question. See, e.g., Willard Kaufman Co. v. Rawlings, 414 So.2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Fox, 400 So.2d 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Because the cases have not clearly defined which party bears the burden of establishing good cause, we think it......
-
Kessler v. Community Blood Bank
...back condition and inability to drive himself made the one-hour trip to Hialeah an unreasonable burden. See Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Fox, 400 So.2d 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Claimant argues that the JCC reversibly erred in holding simply that "qualified medical treatment" was provided, wi......
-
Harman v. Merch. Transp.
...and that the distance to Dr. Mark's office was unreasonable because 50 miles "is the cut-off for reasonable distance in Florida per Commercial Carrier ." See Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Fox , 400 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (holding that for Claimant's compensable back injury, which prec......