Lawson v. Certified Grocers

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lawson v. Certified Grocers

531 So. 2d 985, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2069, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3980, 1988 WL 91210

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 1, 1988

DocketNo. BT-139

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 531 So. 2d 985 (Lawson v. Certified Grocers) 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

Lawson v. Certified Grocers, 531 So. 2d 985, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2069, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3980, 1988 WL 91210 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

NIMMONS, Judge.

We affirm the deputy commissioner’s order denying Lawson’s claim for additional medical treatment beyond the follow-up care at the Miami Pain Clinic voluntarily provided by the employer/carrier. However, we reverse the order insofar as it denied ongoing psychiatric treatment inasmuch as there is no competent substantial evidence to support such denial.

The deputy’s reliance upon Dr. Roso-moff, a neurosurgeon and director of the Miami Pain Clinic, for the conclusion that the claimant was not in need of further psychiatric treatment is erroneous. Dr. Henderson, claimant’s treating psychiatrist, who had been seeing claimant with the consent of the employer/carrier, testified that the claimant had not yet reached [986]*986maximum medical improvement from a psychiatric standpoint and that the claimant was at risk of severe decompensation if psychiatric treatment were discontinued. On cross-examination, Dr. Rosomoff effectively deferred to Dr. Henderson’s judgment regarding the necessity for ongoing psychiatric treatment.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part and REMANDED for the entry of an amended order consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

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

NIMMONS, Judge.

We affirm the deputy commissioner’s order denying Lawson’s claim for additional medical treatment beyond the follow-up care at the Miami Pain Clinic voluntarily provided by the employer/carrier. However, we reverse the order insofar as it denied ongoing psychiatric treatment inasmuch as there is no competent substantial evidence to support such denial.

The deputy’s reliance upon Dr. Roso-moff, a neurosurgeon and director of the Miami Pain Clinic, for the conclusion that the claimant was not in need of further psychiatric treatment is erroneous. Dr. Henderson, claimant’s treating psychiatrist, who had been seeing claimant with the consent of the employer/carrier, testified that the claimant had not yet reached [986]*986maximum medical improvement from a psychiatric standpoint and that the claimant was at risk of severe decompensation if psychiatric treatment were discontinued. On cross-examination, Dr. Rosomoff effectively deferred to Dr. Henderson’s judgment regarding the necessity for ongoing psychiatric treatment.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part and REMANDED for the entry of an amended order consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

531 So. 2d 985, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2069, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3980, 1988 WL 91210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawson-v-certified-grocers-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack