United Sheet Metal Co. v. Meyer, BT-241
| Decision Date | 14 January 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. BT-241,BT-241 |
| Citation | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 184,520 So.2d 616 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 184 UNITED SHEET METAL COMPANY & Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Warren MEYER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Walter E. Beisler of Beisler, Beisler & Malone, West Palm Beach, for appellants.
Lawrence J. Langer, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
In the appealed order, the deputy commissioner required the employer/carrier to reimburse claimant for the cost of a hot tub. The reimbursement was limited to the reasonable cost of a portable hot tub rather than the substantially greater amount actually expended by the claimant for an "in-the-ground" hot tub. We affirm.
The E/C assert that the deputy erred in requiring reimbursement because: (1) prior to the claimant's acquisition and installation of the hot tub, the claimant failed to request the employer/carrier to furnish such equipment as required by Section 440.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1985); 1 and (2) the stringent criteria established in Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Vaughn, 381 So.2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) and Haga v. Clay Hyder Trucking Lines, 397 So.2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), governing the award of a swimming pool should be applied to the award of a hot tub, and the evidence fails to establish such criteria.
According to the claimant and his authorized chiropractic physician, the latter recommended that claimant obtain a hot tub for continuous home care therapy inasmuch as the claimant was able to continue working in his strenuous occupation only through the assistance of a hot tub to ease muscle spasms. It was in response to this recommendation that the claimant acquired and installed the hot tub. The doctor testified that she wrote a letter to the carrier notifying it of the claimant's need for a hot tub. She admitted, however, that she could not be sure that the letter was sent and could only assume that the letter was sent although there was no indication to that effect in her office's "insurance log."
We agree with appellants that the evidence did not establish that the carrier ever received the doctor's letter. However, even assuming that the doctor did not send the letter, we find no authority in the language of the statute or in the decisional law compelling a deputy to visit upon the claimant rather than the carrier the consequence of such communication failure by an authorized doctor.
With respect to appellant's other contention that the award was not proper under the standards applied in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howie v. Pennington County
...agreed to purchase spa which had been shown to be medically necessary to treat claimant's condition); United Sheet Metal Co. v. Meyer, 520 So.2d 616 (Fla.Dist.App.Ct.1988).3 The following exchange between Dr. Goff and employer's attorney took place during a discussion of how Dr. Goff had ar......
-
Aino's Custom Slip Covers v. DeLucia
...for a claimant's use. Edgewood Boys' Ranch Foundation v. Robinson, 451 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). See also United Sheet Metal Co. v. Meyer, 520 So.2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (portable hot tub); Butler v. Lanzo Construction Co., 509 So.2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (air conditioning); Sacre......
-
Escambia County Bd. of County Com'rs v. Phipps, 89-233
...Heart Hospital v. Grafton, 451 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) ("extremely unique circumstances"). Compare United Sheet Metal Company v. Meyer, 520 So.2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) ("[R]equiring installation of a swimming pool on the claimant's property is one thing. [citation omitted] Requirin......
-
Kubber v. Max Davis Associates & Feisco
...available to the claimant once he presented medical evidence establishing a need for hot tub therapy. See United Sheet Metal Co. v. Meyer, 520 So.2d 616, 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) ("record does not support a conclusion that [E/C] proved availability of adequate and more economical alternative......