Leonard v. Jim Rowe Pest Control

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Leonard v. Jim Rowe Pest Control

545 So. 2d 488, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1528, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3598, 1989 WL 68228

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 22, 1989

DocketNo. 88-2564

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 545 So. 2d 488 (Leonard v. Jim Rowe Pest Control) 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

Leonard v. Jim Rowe Pest Control, 545 So. 2d 488, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1528, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3598, 1989 WL 68228 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

ZEHMER, Judge.

Claimant, Joseph Leonard, appeals a workers’ compensation order denying his claim for authorization of Dr. Finkelstein and denying payment of medical bills of Dr. Finkelstein that claimant incurred after the employer and carrier objected to Dr. Finkelstein’s treatment. We reverse.

The record shows that before claimant filed a notice of injury form with the employer and carrier, he sought Dr. Finkel-stein’s treatment for his compensable injury. Upon receiving notice of claimant’s injury, the carrier began paying Dr. Finkel-stein’s bills and told claimant that he could see Dr. Finkelstein “with the understanding that if there was a problem down the road we would send him somewhere else.” Claimant continued to receive treatment from Dr. Finkelstein and employer/carrier paid for that treatment. After several weeks, however, employer/carrier decided to discontinue payment of Dr. Fink-elstein’s bills and sent claimant to another doctor. Claimant objected to the change in physicians and filed a claim requesting the deputy commissioner to authorize Dr. Fink-elstein and order payment of Dr. Finkel-stein’s unpaid medical bills.

The record does not contain competent, substantial evidence that would support a finding that the carrier did not authorize Dr. Finkelstein to treat claimant. On the contrary, the evidence that the carrier paid Dr. Finkelstein’s bills over a period of time without objecting to Dr. Finkelstein’s treatment of claimant permits only a finding that the employer and carrier had authorized Dr. Finkelstein. Additionally, there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the decision to deauthorize Dr. Finkelstein with respect to necessary treatment in the future. Thus, we reverse and remand with directions that the deputy commissioner reinstate Dr. Finkelstein as an authorized physician and order the employer and carrier to pay Dr. Finkelstein’s unpaid medical bills.

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.

Claimant, Joseph Leonard, appeals a workers’ compensation order denying his claim for authorization of Dr. Finkelstein and denying payment of medical bills of Dr. Finkelstein that claimant incurred after the employer and carrier objected to Dr. Finkelstein’s treatment. We reverse.

The record shows that before claimant filed a notice of injury form with the employer and carrier, he sought Dr. Finkel-stein’s treatment for his compensable injury. Upon receiving notice of claimant’s injury, the carrier began paying Dr. Finkel-stein’s bills and told claimant that he could see Dr. Finkelstein “with the understanding that if there was a problem down the road we would send him somewhere else.” Claimant continued to receive treatment from Dr. Finkelstein and employer/carrier paid for that treatment. After several weeks, however, employer/carrier decided to discontinue payment of Dr. Fink-elstein’s bills and sent claimant to another doctor. Claimant objected to the change in physicians and filed a claim requesting the deputy commissioner to authorize Dr. Fink-elstein and order payment of Dr. Finkel-stein’s unpaid medical bills.

The record does not contain competent, substantial evidence that would support a finding that the carrier did not authorize Dr. Finkelstein to treat claimant. On the contrary, the evidence that the carrier paid Dr. Finkelstein’s bills over a period of time without objecting to Dr. Finkelstein’s treatment of claimant permits only a finding that the employer and carrier had authorized Dr. Finkelstein. Additionally, there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the decision to deauthorize Dr. Finkelstein with respect to necessary treatment in the future. Thus, we reverse and remand with directions that the deputy commissioner reinstate Dr. Finkelstein as an authorized physician and order the employer and carrier to pay Dr. Finkelstein’s unpaid medical bills.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

545 So. 2d 488, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1528, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3598, 1989 WL 68228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonard-v-jim-rowe-pest-control-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack