HMSHOST Corp. v. Frederic

District Court of Appeal of Florida

HMSHOST Corp. v. Frederic

102 So. 3d 668, 2012 WL 1929917, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8556

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 29, 2012

DocketNo. 1D11-4956

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 102 So. 3d 668 (HMSHOST Corp. v. Frederic) 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

HMSHOST Corp. v. Frederic, 102 So. 3d 668, 2012 WL 1929917, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8556 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, the Employer/Carrier appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) awarding Claimant her own selection of a “one-time” change of physician under section 440.13(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2009). We reverse because, although we agree with the JCC that Claimant’s purported petition for benefits constituted the “written request” required by section 440.13(2)(f), we hold the JCC erred in finding the Employer/Carrier (E/C) did not comply with the request within the five days section 440.13(2)(f) allows. The E/C’s informing Claimant of a particular doctor’s name within five days of receiving the request satisfied section 440.13(2)(f), even though the E/C did not contact the doctor. See Dorsch, Inc. v. Hunt, 15 So.3d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Harrell v. Citrus County Sch. Bd., 25 So.3d 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). We distinguish Pardo v. Denny’s, Inc., 631 So.2d 388. (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), on the ground that its facts involved the initial provision of care rather than, as here, the transfer of care.

REVERSED.

WOLF, LEWIS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, the Employer/Carrier appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) awarding Claimant her own selection of a “one-time” change of physician under section 440.13(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2009). We reverse because, although we agree with the JCC that Claimant’s purported petition for benefits constituted the “written request” required by section 440.13(2)(f), we hold the JCC erred in finding the Employer/Carrier (E/C) did not comply with the request within the five days section 440.13(2)(f) allows. The E/C’s informing Claimant of a particular doctor’s name within five days of receiving the request satisfied section 440.13(2)(f), even though the E/C did not contact the doctor. See Dorsch, Inc. v. Hunt, 15 So.3d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Harrell v. Citrus County Sch. Bd., 25 So.3d 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). We distinguish Pardo v. Denny’s, Inc., 631 So.2d 388. (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), on the ground that its facts involved the initial provision of care rather than, as here, the transfer of care.

REVERSED.

WOLF, LEWIS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 So. 3d 668, 2012 WL 1929917, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hmshost-corp-v-frederic-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack