Litton Laser Systems v. Chapman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Litton Laser Systems v. Chapman

596 So. 2d 1212, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4215, 1992 WL 69051

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 8, 1992

DocketNo. 91-2278

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 596 So. 2d 1212 (Litton Laser Systems v. Chapman) 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

Litton Laser Systems v. Chapman, 596 So. 2d 1212, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4215, 1992 WL 69051 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employer/carrier (e/c) challenge an order of the judge of compensation claims requiring them to pay for treatment the claimant obtained at a walk-in clinic, and ordering them to authorize treatment by Dr. Robert Belsole. We affirm the authorization of Dr. Belsole, but must reverse that portion of the order requiring the e/c to pay the walk-in clinic’s bill.

An order directing payment of medical bills is improper unless the bills are placed in evidence or there is clear, unequivocal testimony as to the amount of the bills. Metropolitan Dade County v. Moss, 568 So.2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Martin Marietta Corp. v. Glumb, 523 So.2d 1190, 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Here, the walk-in bill was not introduced into evidence and there was no clear testimony as to its amount. We therefore reverse that portion of the order awarding payment of the walk-in bill, and remand to the judge of compensation claims to give claimant the [1213]*1213opportunity to submit evidence as to the amount of the bill.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.

SMITH, WIGGINTON and MINER, 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 (e/c) challenge an order of the judge of compensation claims requiring them to pay for treatment the claimant obtained at a walk-in clinic, and ordering them to authorize treatment by Dr. Robert Belsole. We affirm the authorization of Dr. Belsole, but must reverse that portion of the order requiring the e/c to pay the walk-in clinic’s bill.

An order directing payment of medical bills is improper unless the bills are placed in evidence or there is clear, unequivocal testimony as to the amount of the bills. Metropolitan Dade County v. Moss, 568 So.2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Martin Marietta Corp. v. Glumb, 523 So.2d 1190, 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Here, the walk-in bill was not introduced into evidence and there was no clear testimony as to its amount. We therefore reverse that portion of the order awarding payment of the walk-in bill, and remand to the judge of compensation claims to give claimant the [1213]*1213opportunity to submit evidence as to the amount of the bill.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.

SMITH, WIGGINTON and MINER, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

596 So. 2d 1212, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4215, 1992 WL 69051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/litton-laser-systems-v-chapman-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack