Eastern Elevator Co. v. Hedman, 44454

Citation290 So.2d 56
Decision Date13 February 1974
Docket NumberNo. 44454,44454
PartiesEASTERN ELEVATOR COMPANY, and Travelers Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Lenart C. HEDMAN et al., Respondents.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida

William A. Frieder of Law Offices of Joel R. Teague, Coral Gables, for petitioners.

DEKLE, Justice.

In this certiorari petition by the employer to the Industrial Relations Commission, the respondent is a Physician who treated an injured employee. The compensability of the injury under our Workmen's Compensation Law has not yet been determined so far as the record before us discloses. A physician cannot initiate compensation proceedings as an independent 'claimant' in workmen's compensation for his services; his claim is dismissed and attorney's fees denied.

Respondent physician rendered various medical services to the employee and sent his bill on an appropriate form, claiming $1,200 for 6 hours work. The medical advisors at the Department of Commerce, utilizing the Department's fee schedule, reviewed the documents submitted, including the doctor's operative report, and allowed a fee of $610, which has been paid. Being dissatisfied with this, the physician presented himself as a 'claimant' before the Judge of Industrial Claims.

Despite objections by employer/carrier, the JIC proceeded with the hearing and entered an order allowing a medical fee in the amount of $1,000, plus costs and attorney's fee. As a basis for such award, the order specified that the physician had rendered lengthy and extraordinary medical attention which was not properly outlined in the hospital records. The Industrial Relations Commission, on review of this order, reversed as to the award of attorney's fees, and affirmed the balance of the order.

The petition for certiorari asserts:

(1) that a treating physician may not assume the posture of a claimant before the JIC and receive payment for services rendered to an injured employee in excess of the amounts provided in the fee schedule;

(2) that a physician may not demand payment for services listed in the fee schedule in an amount in excess of that provided for in the schedule; and

(3) that the order of the JIC was not supported by competent, substantial evidence in accordance with logic and reason.

Petitioner's first assertion is that the treating physician is without standing to bring the claim. We agree. Although a claim for payment in excess of that provided by the fee schedule was made by a hospital in the cases of Board of County Com'rs., Dade County, v. Southern Florida Sanitarium & Hosp. Corp., 173 So.2d 131 (Fla.1965), and Shelton v. Sadler, 82 So.2d 883 (Fla.1955), the question of standing to assert an independent claim was never raised in either of these cases. At no time has this Court ruled that a hospital or physician has standing to file independently a workmen's compensation claim for services. Since we determine herein that a physician does not have standing to file an independent claim, the above-cited cases are hereby overruled to the extent that they may intimate otherwise.

The basis for a recovery in a workmen's compensation claim for medical expenses...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Curry v. Ozarks Ecectric Corp.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 14 Julio 2000
    ...may not independently assert a claim in the compensation system for services provided an employee. For example, Eastern Elevator Co. v. Hedman, 290 So.2d 56 (Fla.Sup. 1974), held that a "physician could not initiate compensation proceedings as an independent 'claimant' in workmen's compensa......
  • Falik v. Prince George's Hosp. and Medical Center
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 Noviembre 1989
    ...statute has subsequently been revised to clarify that schedule of maximum fees is statewide in application.6 In Eastern Elevator Company v. Hedman, 290 So.2d 56 (1974, Fla.), the Supreme Court of Florida overruled Shelton and Southern Fla. Sanitarium, supra, only to the extent that they may......
  • Sloat Chiropractic Clinic v. Datsun, CA
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • 19 Marzo 1986
    ...no longer had the right to proceed under the act independently of a proceeding instituted by an employee. In Eastern Elevator Co. v. Hedman, 290 So.2d 56 (Fla.1974), an injured workman went to a physician for treatment. The physician treated him and submitted a bill to the State Department ......
  • Sun Bank/South Florida, N.A. v. Baker
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 23 Febrero 1994
    ...fee schedule limits against health care providers who have sought higher fees for their services. See, e.g., Easter Elevator Co. v. Hedman, 290 So.2d 56, 58 (Fla.1974). 5 In this case, having received the maximum reimbursement allowance for the services provided, CNS may not recover any fee......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT