Heath & Co. v. Greifzu

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Heath & Co. v. Greifzu

545 So. 2d 959, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1571, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3704, 1989 WL 72740

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 28, 1989

DocketNo. 88-2191

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 545 So. 2d 959 (Heath & Co. v. Greifzu) 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

Heath & Co. v. Greifzu, 545 So. 2d 959, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1571, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3704, 1989 WL 72740 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

ZEHMER, Judge.

In this workers’ compensation case the employer, Heath & Company, and the carrier, The Travelers Insurance Company, have appealed the award of temporary total disability benefits to claimant William Greif-zu.

There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the award of benefits, and we affirm that point without discussion.

Appellants also argue that the deputy commissioner erred in ordering payment for the unauthorized services of the psychiatrist, Dr. Lakdawala. Dr. Lakdawala saw claimant on nine occasions between November 20, 1987 and January 25, 1988, but failed to timely report to the employer or carrier his evaluation and treatment of claimant as required by section 440.13, Florida Statutes. A health care provider may, however, be excused from non-compliance with this statutory requirement upon a showing of “good cause.” Section 440.-13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1987). In enforcing this provision, we have required the deputy commissioner to make a finding of good cause where a failure to report is excused. Fuchs Baking Company v. Estate of Szlosek, 466 So.2d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), Vannice Construction Company v. Silverman, 419 So.2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), Cedars of Lebanon Health Care Center, Inc. v. Summerset, 409 So.2d 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The record contains competent, substantial evidence to support the deputy’s finding that the services of Dr. Lakdawala were reasonably necessary and that he should be paid therefor. However, claimant concedes that we should reverse and remand for an express determination of good cause to excuse the failure to timely file the required reports and the prejudice, if any, to the employer and carrier as a result thereof, and we agree.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

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

ZEHMER, Judge.

In this workers’ compensation case the employer, Heath & Company, and the carrier, The Travelers Insurance Company, have appealed the award of temporary total disability benefits to claimant William Greif-zu.

There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the award of benefits, and we affirm that point without discussion.

Appellants also argue that the deputy commissioner erred in ordering payment for the unauthorized services of the psychiatrist, Dr. Lakdawala. Dr. Lakdawala saw claimant on nine occasions between November 20, 1987 and January 25, 1988, but failed to timely report to the employer or carrier his evaluation and treatment of claimant as required by section 440.13, Florida Statutes. A health care provider may, however, be excused from non-compliance with this statutory requirement upon a showing of “good cause.” Section 440.-13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1987). In enforcing this provision, we have required the deputy commissioner to make a finding of good cause where a failure to report is excused. Fuchs Baking Company v. Estate of Szlosek, 466 So.2d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), Vannice Construction Company v. Silverman, 419 So.2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), Cedars of Lebanon Health Care Center, Inc. v. Summerset, 409 So.2d 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The record contains competent, substantial evidence to support the deputy’s finding that the services of Dr. Lakdawala were reasonably necessary and that he should be paid therefor. However, claimant concedes that we should reverse and remand for an express determination of good cause to excuse the failure to timely file the required reports and the prejudice, if any, to the employer and carrier as a result thereof, and we agree.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

545 So. 2d 959, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1571, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3704, 1989 WL 72740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heath-co-v-greifzu-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack