Copeland Steel Erectors v. Miles

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Copeland Steel Erectors v. Miles

483 So. 2d 107, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 406, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6356

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 13, 1986

DocketNo. BH-397

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 483 So. 2d 107 (Copeland Steel Erectors v. Miles) 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

Copeland Steel Erectors v. Miles, 483 So. 2d 107, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 406, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6356 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON, Judge.

Employer/carrier (E/C) appeal a workers’ compensation order directing that claimant be provided with evaluation and treatment, “if necessary” by an endocrinologist. We affirm the award of evaluation, but reverse the award of treatment.

Claimant injured his low back in a com-pensable accident in 1982. Approximately two years later he developed a thyroid nodule. His authorized treating physician, a specialist in internal medicine and rheuma-tology, recommended that claimant be seen by an endocrinologist and opined that the nodule may have developed as a result of the stress and anxiety of claimant’s accident.

The deputy commissioner’s award of evaluation was proper; however, the award of treatment is improper unless a sufficient causal connection is established between claimant’s industrial accident and his medical complaints. Vero Beach Care Center v. Ricks, 476 So.2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Lewis v. Town & Country Auto Body Shop, 447 So.2d 403 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The record before us does not show a causal connection between claimant’s industrial accident and his thyroid [108]*108nodule. The results of the evaluation may provide the deputy commissioner with sufficient evidence to make a determination whether the requisite causal connection exists in order to award treatment.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part.

ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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

THOMPSON, Judge.

Employer/carrier (E/C) appeal a workers’ compensation order directing that claimant be provided with evaluation and treatment, “if necessary” by an endocrinologist. We affirm the award of evaluation, but reverse the award of treatment.

Claimant injured his low back in a com-pensable accident in 1982. Approximately two years later he developed a thyroid nodule. His authorized treating physician, a specialist in internal medicine and rheuma-tology, recommended that claimant be seen by an endocrinologist and opined that the nodule may have developed as a result of the stress and anxiety of claimant’s accident.

The deputy commissioner’s award of evaluation was proper; however, the award of treatment is improper unless a sufficient causal connection is established between claimant’s industrial accident and his medical complaints. Vero Beach Care Center v. Ricks, 476 So.2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Lewis v. Town & Country Auto Body Shop, 447 So.2d 403 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The record before us does not show a causal connection between claimant’s industrial accident and his thyroid [108]*108nodule. The results of the evaluation may provide the deputy commissioner with sufficient evidence to make a determination whether the requisite causal connection exists in order to award treatment.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part.

ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

483 So. 2d 107, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 406, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/copeland-steel-erectors-v-miles-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack