Hill v. Beverly Enterprises, BI-256
| Decision Date | 16 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. BI-256,BI-256 |
| Citation | 489 So.2d 118,11 Fla. L. Weekly 1144 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1144 Thelma HILL, Appellant, v. BEVERLY ENTERPRISES, d/b/a Tampa Health Care Center, and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ellen H. Lorenzen, of Morris & Rosen, Tampa, for appellant.
Donna L. Kerfoot, of Whalen & Morlan, Tampa, for appellees.
This worker's compensation appeal arises from an order of the deputy commissioner granting temporary total disability benefits to appellant but denying payment of unauthorized medical care. We reverse that portion of the order denying payment for unauthorized care.
Appellant is a forty-seven year old woman with a ninth grade education. On January 18, 1985, the date of the accident, appellant was working in the dietary department of appellee Tampa Health Care Center, a health care facility. She was carrying a large pot of coffee to another floor. She stepped off the elevator into a puddle on the floor, slipped, fell and injured her back.
Theresa Davis, appellant's supervisor, sent her to Dr. Perez, a physician employed by the Center. The doctor examined her and told her to take aspirin and return Monday if she did not feel better. That same afternoon, appellant called Theresa Davis and said she was not satisfied with Dr. Perez and would prefer to see another doctor, namely her own. Appellant was told that she had to see Dr. Perez if she expected her bills to be paid and that no other doctor would be authorized. Davis did not inform the carrier that appellant was dissatisfied with the authorized physician.
On Monday morning, appellant came to see Dr. Perez again and, upon finding no one in the office, left. She went to her family physician, Dr. Cordosa. After several weeks of treatment, he was unable to relieve her symptoms and referred her to Dr. Bajo, an orthopedic surgeon, who admitted her to the hospital for evaluation and treatment.
At some point, both doctors called Theresa Davis or Dr. Perez to seek authorization of their treatment and were denied it. After her discharge from the hospital, she was released to return to work. However, she found that she had been terminated because she had not filled out all the paper work required for a leave of absence during her hospitalization.
At the time of the hearing, Appellant was still under the care of Dr. Bajo. Reports from Dr. Bajo, Dr. Cordosa and Centro Asturiano Hospital were not filed with the carrier within the requisite ten day period.
A hearing was held on the matter at which the claimant sought temporary total disability benefits, wage-loss, past medical expenses, and future medical expenses. The deputy commissioner found that:
The evidence does not show that the claimant ever clearly made an objection to the treatment by Dr. Perez which would require the E/C to furnish an additional physician.
The deputy awarded temporary total disability from the time of the accident until appellant was released from the hospital, and he awarded a change in physician to Dr. Bajo. He denied payment of medical bills from Dr. Cordosa, Dr. Bajo, and Centro Asturiano Hospital. This appeal followed.
We take this opportunity to reiterate the obligations of both claimants and employer/carriers with respect to physician selection and changes in authorized physicians. Section 440.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1985) provides:
[T]he employer shall furnish to the employee such medically necessary remedial treatment, care, and attendance by a health care provider and for such period as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery may require ...
Further, Section 440.13(2)(b), purports to provide for the situation where the employer fails to provide treatment:
If the employer fails to provide such treatment, care, and attendance after request by the injured employee, the employee may do so at the expense of the employer, the reasonableness and necessity to be approved by a deputy commissioner....
In that situation, the employee is required to request the care sought. If the employer/carrier fails or neglects to provide the treatment, the employee may seek the treatment without first obtaining an order from the deputy commissioner. The employee does so at the peril of having the deputy commissioner later rule that such treatment was not reasonable and necessary. See Fuchs Baking Company v. Szlosek, 466 So.2d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
In the situation where the employee becomes dissatisfied with the authorized physician, Section 440.13(3) provides:
If an injured employee objects to the medical attendance furnished...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nickolls v. University of Florida
...the employer is responsible for the reasonable and necessary expenses incurred independently by the employee. Hill v. Beverly Enters., 489 So.2d 118, 120-21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In the area of rehabilitation training, in Towne v. Bates File Co., 497 So.2d (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), this court rev......
-
Commercial Carrier Corp. v. LaPointe, 97-2631.
...reasonable and necessary. See Fuchs Baking Company v. [Estate of] Szlosek, 466 So.2d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Hill v. Beverly Enters., 489 So.2d 118, 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In the present case, CCC and Comcar "failed or neglected to provide" a psychiatric evaluation in a timely fashion. N......
-
Robinson v. Shands Teaching Hosp.
...simply over the choice of physicians); Ocean Manor Resort Hotel v. Garbalosa, 512 So.2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA1987); Hill v. Beverly Enterprises, 489 So.2d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA1986) (setting forth detailed discussion of the respective rights and obligations of a claimant and the employer and carrie......
-
FCCI Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schnupp
...on the reasonableness and necessity in advance or seek the alternative care and obtain such ruling afterwards. Hill v. Beverly Enters., 489 So.2d 118, 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (orthopedist requested when none authorized); see also Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Viera, 440 So.2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1......