K-Mart Corp. v. Nasoni, K-MART
| Citation | 377 So.2d 821 |
| Decision Date | 13 December 1979 |
| Docket Number | K-MART,No. QQ-30,QQ-30 |
| Parties | CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Jessie NASONI, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
John F. McMath, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
Gerald A. Rosenthal of Kaplan, Sicking, Hessen, Sugarman, Rosenthal & Zientz, P.A., Miami, for appellee.
Appellant challenges the JIC's order directing the employer to provide examination, evaluation, and recommendations relative to future treatment for the claimant. The record reflects that the employer initially furnished medical treatment and, when claimant's counsel requested an evaluation by a second physician of the claimant's choice, his services were also authorized and paid for by the employer.
The issue presented is whether the judge can require the employer to bear the expense of another evaluation by yet a third physician, in the absence of a conflict in the medical evidence. We believe not. There has been no allegation that the remedial treatment furnished was inadequate or otherwise inappropriate. The order appealed makes no such finding, but is apparently based upon the judge's desire to have a third evaluation in light of the claimant's assertion that she continues to experience pain in the injured thumb. Section 440.29(1), Fla.Stat., would appear to accord him such power, but the cost of such an inquiry cannot, in this instance, be charged to the employer. Lu-Mar Enterprises, Inc. v. Mazur, 8 FCR 248 (1974). The order is accordingly reversed insofar as it directs that the employer provide examination, evaluation and recommendations relative to future treatment for the claimant by Dr. Alexander Angelides.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradley Const. v. White
...create conflict in the medical evidence. Amoco Container Co. v. Singh, 418 So.2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), citing K-Mart Corporation v. Nasoni, 377 So.2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Here, the E/C assert, claimant was treated by two board-certified physicians who both released claimant to work a......
- Ancrum v. State
-
Purex Corp. v. Fay, XX-318
...she did not seek and the order did not provide simply for another "evaluation," distinguishes this case from K-Mart Corporation v. Nasoni, 377 So.2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), and Cardinal Industries Inc. v. Dawkins, 392 So.2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA I do not think this is an instance in which the ......
-
Berry Corp. v. Smith, 90-1713
...Vidimos, 545 So.2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Amoco Container Company v. Singh, 418 So.2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); K-Mart Corporation v. Nasoni, 377 So.2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Lu-Mar Enterprises v. Mazur, 8 FCR 248 In this case, there was no conflict in the medical evidence presented at t......