Mayo Clinic v. Tomblin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mayo Clinic v. Tomblin

715 So. 2d 1016, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8723, 1998 WL 399651

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 20, 1998

DocketNo. 97-3918

StatusPublished

This text of 715 So. 2d 1016 (Mayo Clinic v. Tomblin) 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

Mayo Clinic v. Tomblin, 715 So. 2d 1016, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8723, 1998 WL 399651 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judge of compensation claims (“JCC”) ordered that “[pjayment of all past psychological treatment shall be born[e] by the Employer/Carrier.” As far as the record reflects, Sheila Tomblin did not request authorization for psychological treatment until December 4, 1995. See § 440.13(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1990); see also Martin County Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Jones, 595 So.2d 125, 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (holding that an employer has no liability for medical treatment “without authorization or the need for emergency treatment”). We therefore modify the JCC’s order to apply only to psychological treatment that occurred after December 4, 1995, and remand for the JCC to determine exactly which medical bills the appellants must pay. In all other respects, we affirm.

BENTON, VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judge of compensation claims (“JCC”) ordered that “[pjayment of all past psychological treatment shall be born[e] by the Employer/Carrier.” As far as the record reflects, Sheila Tomblin did not request authorization for psychological treatment until December 4, 1995. See § 440.13(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1990); see also Martin County Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Jones, 595 So.2d 125, 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (holding that an employer has no liability for medical treatment “without authorization or the need for emergency treatment”). We therefore modify the JCC’s order to apply only to psychological treatment that occurred after December 4, 1995, and remand for the JCC to determine exactly which medical bills the appellants must pay. In all other respects, we affirm.

BENTON, VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

715 So. 2d 1016, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8723, 1998 WL 399651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayo-clinic-v-tomblin-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack