American Panel Corp. v. Smith

District Court of Appeal of Florida

American Panel Corp. v. Smith

932 So. 2d 552, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 10851, 2006 WL 1735124

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 27, 2006

DocketNo. 1D05-3446

StatusPublished

This text of 932 So. 2d 552 (American Panel Corp. v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Panel Corp. v. Smith, 932 So. 2d 552, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 10851, 2006 WL 1735124 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, American Panel Corporation and Royal and Sunallianee, filed this appeal seeking reversal of the portion of the judge of compensation claims’ (JCC)’s compensation order awarding appellee, Noel Smith, indemnity benefits for the week of November 17, 2003. Appellee filed a cross-appeal challenging the portion of JCC’s compensation order denying ap-pellee’s request for indemnity benefits for the weeks of October 20, November 3, November 10, 2003, and January 12, 2004. We affirm without comment the portion of the JCC’s order awarding appellee indemnity benefits for the week of November 17, 2003. However, because we agree with appellee that the JCC misconstrued state law in denying appellee’s request for indemnity benefits respecting the additional periods, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

In denying appellee’s claim for indemnity benefits for the weeks of October 20, November 3, November 10, 2003, and January 12, 2004, the JCC incorrectly stated:

I believe Florida law provides that an injured worker who loses work time due to attending unauthorized physician’s appointments is unable to recover workers’ compensation indemnity benefits, which result from attendance at these appointments, unless he has first followed the managed care provisions to attempt to seek such care. For example, the managed care plan could have provided for medical examinations at the Employer’s facility, thereby eliminating the need for time away from work.

Contrary to the JCC’s ruling, this court has ruled that a claimant is not barred from seeking indemnity benefits merely because he or she refuses to participate in an E/C’s managed care arrangement. See Dramis v. Palm Beach County Sch. Bd., 829 So.2d 346, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The existence of a managed care arrangement is relevant to a claim for medical treatment, but is not dispositive of a claim for indemnity benefits. Id.; see also Fla. Distillers v. Rudd, 751 So.2d 754, 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Jefferson v. Wayne Dalton Corp./Hartford, 793 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

[554]*554Therefore, we reverse and remand with directions to determine whether appellee is entitled to indemnity benefits for the weeks of October 20, November 3, November 10, 2003, and January 12, 2004.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with directions.

WOLF, PADOVANO, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, American Panel Corporation and Royal and Sunallianee, filed this appeal seeking reversal of the portion of the judge of compensation claims’ (JCC)’s compensation order awarding appellee, Noel Smith, indemnity benefits for the week of November 17, 2003. Appellee filed a cross-appeal challenging the portion of JCC’s compensation order denying ap-pellee’s request for indemnity benefits for the weeks of October 20, November 3, November 10, 2003, and January 12, 2004. We affirm without comment the portion of the JCC’s order awarding appellee indemnity benefits for the week of November 17, 2003. However, because we agree with appellee that the JCC misconstrued state law in denying appellee’s request for indemnity benefits respecting the additional periods, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

In denying appellee’s claim for indemnity benefits for the weeks of October 20, November 3, November 10, 2003, and January 12, 2004, the JCC incorrectly stated:

I believe Florida law provides that an injured worker who loses work time due to attending unauthorized physician’s appointments is unable to recover workers’ compensation indemnity benefits, which result from attendance at these appointments, unless he has first followed the managed care provisions to attempt to seek such care. For example, the managed care plan could have provided for medical examinations at the Employer’s facility, thereby eliminating the need for time away from work.

Contrary to the JCC’s ruling, this court has ruled that a claimant is not barred from seeking indemnity benefits merely because he or she refuses to participate in an E/C’s managed care arrangement. See Dramis v. Palm Beach County Sch. Bd., 829 So.2d 346, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The existence of a managed care arrangement is relevant to a claim for medical treatment, but is not dispositive of a claim for indemnity benefits. Id.; see also Fla. Distillers v. Rudd, 751 So.2d 754, 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Jefferson v. Wayne Dalton Corp./Hartford, 793 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

[554]*554Therefore, we reverse and remand with directions to determine whether appellee is entitled to indemnity benefits for the weeks of October 20, November 3, November 10, 2003, and January 12, 2004.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with directions.

WOLF, PADOVANO, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

932 So. 2d 552, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 10851, 2006 WL 1735124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-panel-corp-v-smith-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack