Southland Corp. v. Knapp, 93-3798

• Decision Date: 10 January 1995
• Docket Number: No. 93-3798,93-3798
• Citation: 648 So.2d 836
• Parties: 20 Fla. L. Weekly D163 SOUTHLAND CORPORATION and Kemper Group, Appellants, v. Diane KNAPP, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 836

648 So.2d 836

20 Fla. L. Weekly D163

SOUTHLAND CORPORATION and Kemper Group, Appellants, v. Diane KNAPP, Appellee.

No. 93-3798.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

First District.

Jan. 10, 1995.

Bernard J. Zimmerman and Thomas W. Sculco, of Zimmerman, Shuffield, Kiser & Sutcliffe, Orlando, for appellants.

O. John Alpizar, of Alpizar & Gray, Palm Bay, and Bill McCabe, of Shepherd, McCabe & Cooley, Longwood, for appellee.

BARFIELD, Judge.

The employer/carrier (E/C) appeal a worker's compensation order awarding temporary disability and medical benefits. They contend that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) abused his discretion in finding them responsible for the bills of Dr. Sunter, a neurologist, asserting that the claimant unilaterally obtained his treatment after they offered her alternative care, without seeking prior approval by the JCC. They contend that the JCC abused his discretion in awarding temporary total disability (TTD) benefits after April 21, 1993 (when Dr. Sunter began treating her), because the issue was not raised in the claimant's pleadings and they did not consent to have the issue tried at the hearing. Finally, they argue that the JCC's finding that the claimant was temporarily totally disabled for the period in question was not supported by competent substantial evidence, asserting that Dr. Sunter's opinion was outweighed by the testimony of two other doctors. We affirm.

Competent substantial evidence supports the JCC's finding that the E/C's actions with regard to the claimant's request for treatment by a neurologist did not constitute an offer of reasonable alternatives for treatment, and that he therefore did not abuse his discretion in ordering the E/C to pay Dr. Sunter's bill. See Colace v. Hamlet Estates, Ltd., 573 So.2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Lovell Bros. v. Kittles, 518 So.2d 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The E/C's reliance on Usher v. Cothron, 445 So.2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) and Wackenhut v. Freilich, 464 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) is misplaced. In those cases the E/C offered alternatives for treatment, and there was no finding that the E/C's actions were not reasonable. Notwithstanding that the claimant did not file a formal claim for TTD benefits for the period in question, but instead filed claims for "full temporary partial wage loss benefits without use of the 80/80 rule as claimant is unable to earn wages, salary or other remuneration for the period 12/4/92 through 12-17-92 and continuing" and...