Hood's Dairy v. Severino

Decision Date15 September 1965
Docket NumberNo. 34134,34134
PartiesHOOD'S DAIRY and Fund Insurance Companies, Petitioners, v. Louis Nicholas SEVERINO and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Chester L. Skipper, of Ramseur, Bradham, Lyle & Skipper, St. Petersburg, for petitioners.

George N. Meros, of Meros & Wilkinson, St. Petersburg, Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for respondents.

THOMAS, Justice.

The claimant on 27 January 1961 and 4 February 1961 suffered lumbo sacral sprains from accidents arising out of, and in the course of his employment. On these dates Fund Insurance Companies carried the insurance of the employer, Hood's Dairy.

The workman was provided with medical care and was paid compensation benefits.

On 17 January 1963 the deputy commissioner determined that Severino, the claimant, had reached maximum medical improvement and had sustained a loss of 30% permanent partial disability of the body as a whole. Employer and carrier did not appeal from the order containing these findings; nor did the claimant.

The 14th of the following May the attorney for the claimant filed a 'claim for compensation' on an apparent stereotyped form. Superimposed was the title 'PETITION FOR MODIFICATION.' In the body of the paper appeared a claim for compensation or medical treatment or both. It was stated that information supporting the claim was being set out as required by Sec. 440.19(1)(c), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., but no information was given except the names and addresses of the employer and employee and references to the dates of the accidents and the deputy's order. In the space provided for a statement of the compensation and remedial treatment claimed appeared only these words 'Petition for Modification Order entered 1-17-63 based on change of condition, attorney's fees and costs.' Parenthetically, Sec. 440.19(1)(c) applies to the filing of original claims.

The matter came on for hearing 10 July 1963. At claimant's insistence the hearing was adjourned to 21 November 1963.

In the interim, 6 October 1963, the claimant without authorization of the employer or carrier went to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. It was 11 days later that the claimant's attorney apprised the employer and carrier that his client was in the clinic, that surgery had been recommended and would be performed 19 October. According to testimony for the claimant it was, then, not until 17 October that employer and carrier were apprised of claimant's whereabouts and the contemplated operation. According to their statement they knew nothing about the operation beforehand. They did not authorize the surgery despite the effort of claimant's attorney to get them to do so.

Even so, the deputy reasoned that although the claimant did not 'specifically request authorization' to secure treatment as the Mayo Clinic he was, nonetheless, entitled to reimbursement for the cost since the employer and carrier had refused to pay for medication after 17 January 1963. That was the date of the order declaring claimant had reached maximum medical improvement; and the order was silent about further medical treatment.

We have difficulty finding in the record support for the charge that medical care was declined after 17 January 1963. The only testimony approaching such a contention was claimant's own statement that 'they' had sent a letter to the drug store advising that the carrier would not after that date be responsible for any drugs sold to claimant.

The claim for cost of the treatment at the Mayo Clinic should have been disallowed under our decision in Corporate Group Service, Inc. v. Lymberis, 146 So.2d 745 (Fla.1962). The method followed by the claimant in securing an operation at the Mayo Clinic did not remotely comply with the requirements set out in Sec. 440.13 of Workmen's Compensation Law or the cited case, and the order of the deputy commissioner approving it as well as the order of the Full Commission affirming what the deputy held were erroneous and must be reversed. Under this section the employee may recover for remedial treatment arranged by himself only if the employer fails to furnish the treatment after request. It is obvious in this record, as we have already shown, that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • St. Francis Hospital, Inc. v. Feinberg
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • November 2, 1966
    ...Inc. v. Ponder, Fla., 72 So.2d 781. The claimant shared with the physicians the responsibility to file the reports. Hood's Dairy v. Severino, Fla., 178 So.2d 588. Refusal of the employer to furnish medical services is not good cause. Strickland v. Al Landers Dump Trucks, Inc., Fla., 170 So.......
  • Lindsey v. J.R. & R. Enterprises
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 26, 1990
    ...failure to obtain authorization, citing Walt Disney World Co. v. Schiebel, 397 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), 2 and Hoods Dairy v. Severino, 178 So.2d 588 (Fla.1965). 3 Such decisions, however, have no clear relevance to the determination of futility by the judge herein, i.e., the finding,......
  • Walt Disney World Co. v. Schiebel
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 28, 1982
    ...in itself excuse the failure to file reports. 1 See St. Francis Hospital, Inc. v. Feinberg, 192 So.2d 753 (Fla.1966); Hood's Dairy v. Severino, 178 So.2d 588 (Fla.1965). The cause was remanded for a specific finding as to whether good cause existed for the failure to comply with Section 440......
  • Broward Indus. Plating, Inc. v. Weiby
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 11, 1981
    ...submit the required reports, id., nor does the fact that a claim is being contested constitute such good cause. See Hood's Dairy v. Severino, 178 So.2d 588, 591 (Fla.1965). Here, the record does not indicate that the reporting requirements of § 440.13(1), Fla.Stat., were satisfied. The Depu......
  • 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