Belcher v. Dade County School Board

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Belcher v. Dade County School Board

623 So. 2d 826, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8975, 1993 WL 347779

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 3, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1443

StatusPublished

This text of 623 So. 2d 826 (Belcher v. Dade County School Board) 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

Belcher v. Dade County School Board, 623 So. 2d 826, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8975, 1993 WL 347779 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals a worker’s compensation order which denied his claim for certain household items, the services of a maid, attorney’s fees and costs. Specifically, appellant seeks reversal of that part of the order which denied his claim for bathtub rails. Because it appears that the judge of compensation claims overlooked or ignored certain evidence, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of the claim for bathtub rails.

While working for the Dade County School Board, appellant suffered back and leg injuries in a compensable accident in December 1992. Appellant contends that his condition as a result of his industrial accident makes it difficult for him to enter and exit the bathtub. Therefore, among other things, appellant requested rails for his bathtub. Appel-lee argued in response that the tub rails, as well as the other items sought, were not medically necessary.

Dr. Christian Keedy, M.D., appellant’s treating physician, testified in deposition that tub rails would improve safety, thereby reducing the risk of further injury to appellant’s back. Dr. Keedy conceded, upon being further questioned, that rails were not a medical necessity in the instant case. The JCC also had before him the testimony of Dr. Basil Yates, M.D., who testified initially that bathtub rails were not a medical necessity in this ease. Later in his testimony, however, Dr. Yates agreed that tub rails would be a medical necessity if appellant’s bathtub was a large one. At the hearing, appellant verified that he has a large tub.

In denying the claim for tub rails, the JCC specifically relied upon testimony of Drs. Keedy and Yates that such was not a medical necessity. It appears that the JCC may have overlooked the testimony of Dr. Yates, as above noted, in which he qualified his testimony by allowing that rails would be necessary for a large tub, and the testimony of the claimant that his tub was large. Accordingly, we find it necessary to remand this case so that the judge may reconsider Dr. Yates’ testimony and award bathtub rails as requested, or explain his rejection of this testimony. See, Yeargin Construction Co. v. Hutchinson, 547 So.2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SMITH, WOLF and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals a worker’s compensation order which denied his claim for certain household items, the services of a maid, attorney’s fees and costs. Specifically, appellant seeks reversal of that part of the order which denied his claim for bathtub rails. Because it appears that the judge of compensation claims overlooked or ignored certain evidence, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of the claim for bathtub rails.

While working for the Dade County School Board, appellant suffered back and leg injuries in a compensable accident in December 1992. Appellant contends that his condition as a result of his industrial accident makes it difficult for him to enter and exit the bathtub. Therefore, among other things, appellant requested rails for his bathtub. Appel-lee argued in response that the tub rails, as well as the other items sought, were not medically necessary.

Dr. Christian Keedy, M.D., appellant’s treating physician, testified in deposition that tub rails would improve safety, thereby reducing the risk of further injury to appellant’s back. Dr. Keedy conceded, upon being further questioned, that rails were not a medical necessity in the instant case. The JCC also had before him the testimony of Dr. Basil Yates, M.D., who testified initially that bathtub rails were not a medical necessity in this ease. Later in his testimony, however, Dr. Yates agreed that tub rails would be a medical necessity if appellant’s bathtub was a large one. At the hearing, appellant verified that he has a large tub.

In denying the claim for tub rails, the JCC specifically relied upon testimony of Drs. Keedy and Yates that such was not a medical necessity. It appears that the JCC may have overlooked the testimony of Dr. Yates, as above noted, in which he qualified his testimony by allowing that rails would be necessary for a large tub, and the testimony of the claimant that his tub was large. Accordingly, we find it necessary to remand this case so that the judge may reconsider Dr. Yates’ testimony and award bathtub rails as requested, or explain his rejection of this testimony. See, Yeargin Construction Co. v. Hutchinson, 547 So.2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SMITH, WOLF and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

623 So. 2d 826, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8975, 1993 WL 347779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belcher-v-dade-county-school-board-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack