Beavers v. Carpenter Contractors of America

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Beavers v. Carpenter Contractors of America

107 So. 3d 551, 2013 WL 678620, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3001

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 26, 2013

DocketNo. 1D12-0324

StatusPublished

This text of 107 So. 3d 551 (Beavers v. Carpenter Contractors of America) 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

Beavers v. Carpenter Contractors of America, 107 So. 3d 551, 2013 WL 678620, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3001 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, Steve Beavers argues the judge of compensation claims (JCC) erred in denying his request that pain management with Dr. Khan be continued or reauthorized. In ruling that Dr. Khan was properly deau-thorized by the employer/carrier under section 440.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2010), the JCC did not have the benefit of this court’s decision in Avery v. City of Coral Gables, 100 So.3d 749, 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“A claimant who has reached MMI ... cannot be ⅛ recuperation,’ as a matter of law, where the treatment being provided is not curative.”). We therefore reverse the order on appeal and remand for further proceedings.

BENTON, C.J., DAVIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, Steve Beavers argues the judge of compensation claims (JCC) erred in denying his request that pain management with Dr. Khan be continued or reauthorized. In ruling that Dr. Khan was properly deau-thorized by the employer/carrier under section 440.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2010), the JCC did not have the benefit of this court’s decision in Avery v. City of Coral Gables, 100 So.3d 749, 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“A claimant who has reached MMI ... cannot be ⅛ recuperation,’ as a matter of law, where the treatment being provided is not curative.”). We therefore reverse the order on appeal and remand for further proceedings.

BENTON, C.J., DAVIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 So. 3d 551, 2013 WL 678620, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beavers-v-carpenter-contractors-of-america-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack