Bissen v. Smalley Transportation

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bissen v. Smalley Transportation

653 So. 2d 494, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4188, 1995 WL 232525

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 21, 1995

DocketNo. 94-1011

StatusPublished

This text of 653 So. 2d 494 (Bissen v. Smalley Transportation) 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

Bissen v. Smalley Transportation, 653 So. 2d 494, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4188, 1995 WL 232525 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ALLEN, Judge.

The claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order, and challenges the denial of payment for chiropractic care which he obtained without prior authorization. The claimant had submitted a chiropractic request to the employer’s servicing agent, and although chiropractic was eventually authorized we conclude that this response was not forthcoming within a reasonable amount of time. The claimant had then commenced the unauthorized care, and was not compelled to discontinue this treatment. Chase v. Henkel & McCoy, 562 So.2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). And the availability of care which had previously been authorized in another discipline did not discharge the employer’s obligation to act promptly on the claimant’s chiropractic [495]*495request. Jackson v. Publix Supermarkets, 520 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The employer may therefore be responsible for the unauthorized chiropractic care if this treatment was reasonable and necessary. Chase; Jackson. The appealed order is accordingly reversed, and this case is remanded.

DAVIS, J., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur.

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

ALLEN, Judge.

The claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order, and challenges the denial of payment for chiropractic care which he obtained without prior authorization. The claimant had submitted a chiropractic request to the employer’s servicing agent, and although chiropractic was eventually authorized we conclude that this response was not forthcoming within a reasonable amount of time. The claimant had then commenced the unauthorized care, and was not compelled to discontinue this treatment. Chase v. Henkel & McCoy, 562 So.2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). And the availability of care which had previously been authorized in another discipline did not discharge the employer’s obligation to act promptly on the claimant’s chiropractic [495]*495request. Jackson v. Publix Supermarkets, 520 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The employer may therefore be responsible for the unauthorized chiropractic care if this treatment was reasonable and necessary. Chase; Jackson. The appealed order is accordingly reversed, and this case is remanded.

DAVIS, J., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

653 So. 2d 494, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4188, 1995 WL 232525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bissen-v-smalley-transportation-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack