Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

February 23, 2018 by admin

Workers’ compensation — Medical benefits — Employer’s authorization of certain treatments while insisting that treatments be performed by health care provider other than claimant’s treating physician amounted to de facto deauthorization of treating physician — Employer did not satisfy requirements of statute allowing employer to transfer care of employee if independent medical examination determines employee is not making appropriate progress in recuperation

43
Fla. L. Weekly D413b

Workers’
compensation — Medical benefits — Employer’s authorization of certain
treatments while insisting that treatments be performed by health care provider
other than claimant’s treating physician amounted to de facto deauthorization
of treating physician — Employer did not satisfy requirements of statute
allowing employer to transfer care of employee if independent medical
examination determines employee is not making appropriate progress in
recuperation

JOSE LUIS HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v.
HIALEAH SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT and SEDGWICK CMS, Appellees. 1st District. Case
No. 1D17-141. February 20, 2018. Date of Accident: March 10, 2015. On appeal
from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Edward Almeyda, Judge.
Counsel: Mark L. Zientz of Law Offices of Mark L. Zientz, P.A., Miami, for
Appellant. Eduardo E. Neret of Neret, Finlay & Nguyen, LLP, Miami, for
Appellees.
(PER CURIAM.) Jose Luis Hernandez, a
workers’ compensation claimant, was prescribed certain spinal-injection
treatments. His employer authorized the treatment, but insisted that another
physician — not Hernandez’s treating physician — perform them. The Judge of
Compensation Claims sided with the employer, and Hernandez appeals.
Section 440.13(2)(d) allows the
employer “to transfer the care of an injured employee from the attending health
care provider if an independent medical examination determines that the
employee is not making appropriate progress in recuperation.” Here, the
employer did not satisfy the statute’s requirements. Instead, the employer
refused to allow Hernandez’s authorized physician to perform authorized
treatments, a refusal “amount[ing] to a de facto deauthorization of the
doctor.” Williams v. Triple J Enters., 650 So. 2d 1114, 1116 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1995).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further
proceedings. (B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and OSTERHAUS and WINSOR, JJ., concur.)
* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business losses — Business interruption — All-risk commercial policy providing coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to” property or “direct physical loss or damage to” property does not insure against losses and expenses incurred by business as result of COVID-19 — Under Florida law there is no coverage because COVID-19 did not cause tangible alteration of the insured properties
  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business income losses — Trial court’s finding that policy covering loss of business income due to the suspension of operations caused by “direct physical loss or damage to property” required some tangible alteration to insured property comported with common meaning of its terms and context of policy as a whole — Policy did not cover economic losses insured suffered when it suspended its operations due to COVID-19 pandemic — No error in dismissing with prejudice insured’s petition for declaratory relief and damages
  • Torts — Negligent security — Sovereign immunity — Agency — Limited immunity — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action brought against company which contracted with county to provide security services and its employee — Defendant company was entitled to limited sovereign immunity under 768.28(5) where county asserted a degree of control over defendant’s employees — Fact that defendant’s employee was working alone rather than side-by-side with county employees did not change level of control county had over defendant employee as evidenced by contract between county and defendant — Absolute immunity under section 768.28(9) applied to defendant employee, but did not apply to defendant company because it is a corporation — No abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint to add count for punitive damages where record is devoid of evidence that defendant employee engaged in intentional misconduct or gross negligence
  • Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Assignee’s action against insurer to recover payment for construction work performed on insured property following hurricane damage — Court adopts magistrate’s report and recommendation concluding that Section 627.7152(10), Florida Statutes, which repeals assignee’s standing to recover attorney’s fees under section 627.428, does not apply in instant case where both issuance of policy and assignment agreement predated effective date of statute — Whether relevant date for purposes of applying statute is date policy was issued or date assignment agreement was entered into need not be resolved under circumstances — Motion to strike plaintiff’s claims for attorney’s fees is denied
  • Torts — Dog bite — Negligence — Sheriffs — Sovereign immunity — Action alleging deputy sheriff was negligent in handling K-9 that bit plaintiff while attending a public event — Trial court erred in dismissing complaint against sheriff on ground that action was barred by sovereign immunity — Although a plaintiff may not rely on section 767.04 when suing a state agency for a dog bite because it is a strict liability statute, a plaintiff may bring such a suit in common-law negligence — Complaint adequately stated a cause of action for negligence under common law principles — Court rejects argument that plaintiff placed himself in zone of risk by approaching area occupied by deputy and police dog, and that because deputy did not move in proximity to plaintiff there was no zone of risk created by conduct of deputy — Deputy created the zone of risk by patrolling the venue with his K-9 — Whether the deputy was walking around or standing still was irrelevant — Because plaintiff was in a public location he had the right to walk where he wanted, including right up to the deputy, and, unless warned by the deputy to move away, plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the dog would not bite him — Lawsuit was not barred by sovereign immunity where, although the decision to patrol the public venue with K-9s may have been a discretionary function, the act of patrolling the venue with K-9s was operational

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982