Mills v. Walden-Sparkman, Inc., WALDEN-SPARKMA
| Decision Date | 22 August 1986 |
| Docket Number | INC,No. BJ-60,WALDEN-SPARKMA,BJ-60 |
| Citation | 493 So.2d 64,11 Fla. L. Weekly 1847 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1847 Cheryl D. MILLS, Appellant, v., and Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Companies, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
H. Guy Smith and C. Kenneth Stuart, Jr. of H. Guy Smith, P.A., Lakeland, for appellant.
Mark A. Glitto of Marlow, Shofi, Smith, Hennen & Smith, P.A., Tampa, for appellees.
This cause is before us on appeal from a worker's compensation order denying reimbursement to claimant for transportation costs incurred in obtaining medical treatment. We reverse. An issue raised is whether a family member should be reimbursed for wages lost due to absence from work when providing claimant with transportation to obtain authorized medical treatment.
The facts in this case show that Mills injured her wrist in two industrial accidents. As a result she was under the care of a surgeon in Gainesville, Florida, and had to travel 306 miles roundtrip every time she left home for treatment. According to medical testimony, as a result of her compensable injury Mills was placed in a cast which precluded her from driving herself in her own car, for she could not operate the stick shift. Each of the fourteen times Mills went to Gainesville for treatment, her husband drove her. Each trip to Gainesville resulted in the loss of a day's wages for Mills' husband. At the compensation hearing Mills requested $.20 per mile plus $50.00 per day per trip to cover her husband's lost wages. The deputy commissioner denied the entire claim for transportation expenses, stating that Mills had not shown that she had used "the most economical means of transportation available and suitable in the individual case." In addition, the deputy commissioner held that as to the mileage claim, the claimant had not previously submitted it. We hold that under the circumstances of this case it was error to totally deny the claim for transportation costs.
Section 440.13(4), Florida Statutes (1982) [now 440.13(5) ] allows reimbursement for travel expenses to claimants who incur costs when attempting to receive authorized treatment. That section provides:
An injured employee is entitled, as a part of his remedial treatment, care, and attendance, to reasonable actual cost of transportation to and from the doctor's office, hospital, or other places of treatment by the most economical means of transportation available and suitable in the individual case. When the employee is entitled to such reimbursement for transportation by private automobile, it shall be presumed, in the absence of proof, that the actual cost is the amount allowed by the state to employees for official travel.
The statute clearly entitles a claimant to reimbursement of "reasonable actual cost of transportation." Therefore, we remand for an award of transportation costs to be determined based on the following outlined approach:
The claimant is required to first meet her burden of providing evidence that the mode of transportation taken was reasonable and economical under the circumstances, taking into consideration the medical condition of the claimant. The record reflects that Mills met that burden. In this case, Mills apparently not only suffered a wrist injury which precluded her from operating her car, but she was suffering from a post operative depression as well, and was advised against travelling alone by her doctor. The claimant should provide evidence of the cost of the chosen travel as compared to the costs of other reasonably available means of transportation. Once the claimant accomplishes this, the burden shifts to the employer and carrier to supply evidence that a more reasonable and economical transportation method exists, of which claimant could have been aware, but chose not to take advantage of. For...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Timothy Bowser Const. Co. v. Kowalski
...cost of transportation for authorized medical treatment." Marlowe, 589 So.2d at 994; Medrano, 556 So.2d at 406; Mills v. Walden-Sparkman, Inc., 493 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Hughes, 412 So.2d at 923 (Claimant's travel to parent's funeral was noncompensable transportation cost because un......
-
Mycogen Seeds v. Sands
...on point, we find persuasive a Florida case that decided the precise issue under a similar statute. See Mills v. Walden-Sparkman, Inc., 493 So.2d 64 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1986). The Florida statute "An injured employee is entitled, as a part of his remedial treatment, care, and attendance, to r......
-
University of Cent. Florida/State of Fla. v. Gleaves, 90-2201
...award of travel expenses and remand to the JCC for entry of a sufficiently detailed order in this regard. See Mills v. Walden-Sparkman, Inc., 493 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Finally, upon reversal and remand, we direct the JCC to again address the question of the effect of appellee's rece......
-
Marlowe v. Dogs Only Grooming
...rather than attendant care service that is medically necessary. We therefore reject the claimant's argument that Mills v. Walden-Sparkman, Inc., 493 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), supports her claim for attendant care because it states that "[w]hen transportation is provided to a claimant be......