Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Frank, 95-589
| Decision Date | 21 November 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-589,95-589 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D2588 WINN DIXIE STORES, INC. and Crawford & Company, Appellants, v. Karen FRANK, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Mary E. Cruickshank of McConnaughhay, Roland, Maida & Cherr, Tallahassee, for Appellants.
David C. Wiitala of Wiitala & Contole, P.A., North Palm Beach; and Jonathan M. Sabghir, Tamarac, for Appellee.
In this case Winn Dixie Stores and Crawford & Company, employer and carrier respectively, appeal an emergency order awarding Karen Frank, the claimant, 24-hour a day attendant care. As the JCC's order acknowledges, and the claimant argues, her emergency petition for an award of attendant care benefits was a new claim based upon her current need. See Caron v. Systematic Air Services, 576 So.2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Therefore, the claimant had the burden of proving that she was entitled to the care because it was medically necessary. See Jackson Manor Nursing Home v. Ortiz, 606 So.2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Under section 440.13(2)(g), Florida Statutes (1993), the claimant cannot meet that burden of proof without a statement by a physician that such care is medically necessary. See also Attitudes & Trends v. Arsuaga, 616 So.2d 1103, 1103 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (). The only witness to testify in the hearing below was a doctor who stated that, though claimant is still wearing a brace to support her injured knee, attendant care was not necessary. We note, however, that the JCC interrupted the proceedings and prevented the taking of additional evidence in support of the claim for attendant care, by ruling that the claimant was entitled to attendant care on an emergency basis. That was error because the claimant had not yet provided competent substantial evidence (by means of a physician's testimony as required by section 440.13(2)(g)) of the medical necessity for such benefits. Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings, in which the parties shall be given a full and fair opportunity to prove the claimant's medical need for the benefits requested.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National R.R. Passenger v. Rountree Transport
... ... CORPORATION (AMTRAK), CSX Transportation, Inc., ... Baxley v. Dixie Land & Timber Co., 521 So.2d 170, 172 ... See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. McDonald, 676 So.2d 12, 20 ... ...
-
Dep't of Revenue v. M.J.M.
...As the decisions cited in the text demonstrate, remand is the correct remedy in such cases. See also Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Frank , 665 So.2d 271, 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (remanding for a "full and fair" opportunity for the claimant to present her case where the trier of fact "interrupt......
-
ADAMS BLDG. MATERIALS, INC. v. Brooks, 1D03-3405.
...that employer must provide attendant care performed only at the direction and control of a physician); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Frank, 665 So.2d 271, 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (noting statutory standard that physician issue statement indicating attendant care is medically necessary). The st......