Capital Cities/ABC-TV N.Y. v. Wagner

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Capital Cities/ABC-TV N.Y. v. Wagner

742 So. 2d 347, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10631, 1999 WL 594193

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 10, 1999

DocketNo. 98-3504

StatusPublished

This text of 742 So. 2d 347 (Capital Cities/ABC-TV N.Y. v. Wagner) 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

Capital Cities/ABC-TV N.Y. v. Wagner, 742 So. 2d 347, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10631, 1999 WL 594193 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The employer/carrier appeal a workers’ compensation order, challenging an award of payment for surgery which was obtained without advance authorization. The surgery was performed by an authorized doctor, but the carrier had refused the claimant’s request for authorization of the surgical procedure. The judge found the surgery to be medically necessary, and payment was properly awarded under section 440.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes. This statute permits a claimant to obtain necessary care which the employer declines to provide after request, when there is no equivalent alternative authorization. See, e.g., Colace v. Hamlet Estates, Ltd., 573 So.2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Although section 440.13(3)(a), Florida Statutes, conditions eligibility for payment on authorization, and section 440.13(3)(i), Florida Statutes, likewise contemplates the authorization of surgical procedures such as that involved in the present case, those provisions must be read in context with section 440.13(2)(c), which clearly permits the claimant to obtain care which the employer has refused to provide, and which is medically necessary.

The appealed order is affirmed.

JOANOS, ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

The employer/carrier appeal a workers’ compensation order, challenging an award of payment for surgery which was obtained without advance authorization. The surgery was performed by an authorized doctor, but the carrier had refused the claimant’s request for authorization of the surgical procedure. The judge found the surgery to be medically necessary, and payment was properly awarded under section 440.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes. This statute permits a claimant to obtain necessary care which the employer declines to provide after request, when there is no equivalent alternative authorization. See, e.g., Colace v. Hamlet Estates, Ltd., 573 So.2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Although section 440.13(3)(a), Florida Statutes, conditions eligibility for payment on authorization, and section 440.13(3)(i), Florida Statutes, likewise contemplates the authorization of surgical procedures such as that involved in the present case, those provisions must be read in context with section 440.13(2)(c), which clearly permits the claimant to obtain care which the employer has refused to provide, and which is medically necessary.

The appealed order is affirmed.

JOANOS, ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

742 So. 2d 347, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10631, 1999 WL 594193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capital-citiesabc-tv-ny-v-wagner-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack