Geiger Distributors, Inc. v. Snow
Decision Date | 11 May 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 34071.,34071. |
Citation | 186 So.2d 507 |
Parties | GEIGER DISTRIBUTORS, INC., and Iowa Homo Mutual Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. John SNOW and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Howard N. Pelzner, Miami, for petitioners.
Williams & Jabara, Miami, J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, and Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, for respondents.
The Petitioners, Geiger Distributors, Inc. and Iowa Home Mutual Insurance Company, seek review by certiorari of an order of the Florida Industrial Commission, reversing the Deputy Commissioner's holding that the condition suffered by the Respondent, John Snow, pre-existed the accident of December 2, 1959, and was therefore not compensable.
The Respondent, by cross petition for certiorari, asserts error in the order of the Full Commission affirming the Deputy Commissioner's ruling that the treating physician was not entitled to payment for his services. The Commission ruled the Deputy had erroneously determined that the Statute of Limitations had run but that he was correct in denying payment of the doctor's bill predicated on the doctor's failure to file a timely claim for his services.
The Respondent suffered a compensable accident on December 2, 1959, when a pressurized charge of freon gas escaped from an air conditioning system he was over-hauling and struck his hands full force, freezing them to a pipe for two minutes before he was able to extricate himself. He immediately reported the accident to his employer, Geiger Distributors, Inc. and was driven by one of the corporate officers to the office of Doctor Richard Mayer for treatment of his injuries.
The doctor submitted his first report on December 15, 1959, and his final medical report on February 6, 1960, for which he was paid in full.
On June 29, 1960, the Respondent, Snow returned to Doctor Mayer for further treatment to his hands. On this occasion the doctor submitted two reports, one on July 27, 1960, and a final report on October 20, 1960, for which he was again paid in full for his services. Mr. Snow requested and received authorization from his corporate employer for the resumption of medical treatment for his injuries.
The Respondent next returned to Doctor Mayer on March 2, 1961, and the doctor, on March 22, 1961, filed his report on the appropriate Industrial Commission form. On this last occasion the doctor continued treating the Respondent without further reporting until his interim billing October 18, 1962. Although the bill for services was received by the Petitioner carrier on October 22, 1962, it was not filed with the Commission until November 28, 1962, some five weeks later.
The employer knew that Mr. Snow had returned for further medical treatment in March of 1961, and that he had received treatment throughout the pendency of these proceedings. The Respondent advised his employer each time that he missed work for treatment and, in fact, used the company truck to go to the doctor's office on a number of such occasions.
Agents of the petitioner insurance carrier referred Mr. Snow to Doctor Hollis F. Garrard on October 24, 1962. Doctor Garrard did a full medical examination of the patient including a microscopic examination for fungi. The fungus examination was negative and the doctor concluded the patient was suffering from hyperkeratosis and fibrositis causing permanent damage to the peripheral vessels nourishing the hands. These conditions were, in the doctor's opinion, causally related to the freezing accident.
A claim for compensation was filed with the Industrial Commission March 28, 1963. Thereafter, the Respondent was examined by Doctor Wiley Sams on May 20 and June 7, 1963. At the initial examination Doctor Sams...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stacy v. Venice Isles Mobile Home Park, 92-2328
...Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence Sec. 704.2 at 526 (1993 ed.). As the Florida Supreme Court recognized in Geiger Distributors, Inc. v. Snow, 186 So.2d 507, 509 (Fla.1966), a medical expert's opinion testimony must be "solidly rooted in a firm foundation of fact." In any event, when the......
-
Watson v. Freeman Decorating Co.
...Fla. 493, 197 So. 117, 118 (1940); Consolidated Growers Association v. Kruse, 159 Fla. 405, 31 So.2d 545 (1947); Geiger Distributors, Inc. v. Snow, 186 So.2d 507, 509 (Fla.1966). Those opinions suggest that when a claimant presents evidence revealing the employer's inconsistent conduct, the......
-
Fuchs Baking Co. v. Estate of Szlosek
...cases which stand for the proposition that a medical expert's opinion must be based upon evidence in the record, Geiger Distributors, Inc. v. Snow, 186 So.2d 507 (Fla.1966), not upon facts or inferences not supported by evidence, Victoria Hospital v. Perez, 395 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981......
-
Collins v. Catalytic, Inc.
...rooted in a firm foundation of fact to support the opinion of the expert upon whom the Deputy chooses to rely." Geiger Distribs., Inc. v. Snow, 186 So.2d 507, 509 (Fla.1966) (emphasis added). Moreover, when, as here, the JCC's findings on permanency vel non depend entirely on medical eviden......