Yarnall Warehouse & Home Insurance v. Jones

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Yarnall Warehouse & Home Insurance v. Jones

412 So. 2d 914, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19744

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 7, 1982

DocketNo. AE-170

StatusPublished

This text of 412 So. 2d 914 (Yarnall Warehouse & Home Insurance v. Jones) 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

Yarnall Warehouse & Home Insurance v. Jones, 412 So. 2d 914, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19744 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAW, Judge.

The employer/carrier appeals from an order of the deputy commissioner which found that the employer/carrier, though aware that the claimant was admitted to the hospital on an emergency basis, failed to provide needed medical treatment. The deputy ordered the employer/carrier to pay temporary total disability benefits for the period of hospitalization, interest, the bill of Dr. Hatt, and that portion of the hospital bill incurred before Dr. Miller was advised that the hospitalization was unauthorized.

The deputy’s finding that the claimant was hospitalized on an emergency basis is supported by competent substantial evidence. The point on appeal is accordingly AFFIRMED.

The claimant, on cross-appeal, challenges that portion of the order which denied payment of the hospital bill subsequent to the time Dr. Miller was put on notice that there was no authorization for the hospitalization. Claimant’s argument has merit. Liability for payment of the hospital bill resulted from the carrier’s failure to provide medical treatment after learning of the claimant’s need for such treatment. [915]*915The carrier cannot terminate its liability without making an offer for alternative medical treatment. The carrier’s action was tantamount to deauthorization of a treating physician. See Pinellas County School Board v. Fly, 393 So.2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), wherein this Court held that an authorized treating physician may be deau-thorized by the employer/carrier if alternative medical treatment is offered. This principle is not limited to a treating physician; it is equally applicable to all medical service providers. The judge erred in concluding that the carrier’s liability for the claimant’s hospital bill terminated when Dr. Miller was put on notice that the hospital was unauthorized to treat the claimant.

As to the issue raised on cross-appeal, the order is REVERSED and REMANDED with directions that the deputy commissioner enter an order directing the employer/carrier to pay the hospital bill for the claimant’s full period of confinement.

MILLS and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.

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

SHAW, Judge.

The employer/carrier appeals from an order of the deputy commissioner which found that the employer/carrier, though aware that the claimant was admitted to the hospital on an emergency basis, failed to provide needed medical treatment. The deputy ordered the employer/carrier to pay temporary total disability benefits for the period of hospitalization, interest, the bill of Dr. Hatt, and that portion of the hospital bill incurred before Dr. Miller was advised that the hospitalization was unauthorized.

The deputy’s finding that the claimant was hospitalized on an emergency basis is supported by competent substantial evidence. The point on appeal is accordingly AFFIRMED.

The claimant, on cross-appeal, challenges that portion of the order which denied payment of the hospital bill subsequent to the time Dr. Miller was put on notice that there was no authorization for the hospitalization. Claimant’s argument has merit. Liability for payment of the hospital bill resulted from the carrier’s failure to provide medical treatment after learning of the claimant’s need for such treatment. [915]*915The carrier cannot terminate its liability without making an offer for alternative medical treatment. The carrier’s action was tantamount to deauthorization of a treating physician. See Pinellas County School Board v. Fly, 393 So.2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), wherein this Court held that an authorized treating physician may be deau-thorized by the employer/carrier if alternative medical treatment is offered. This principle is not limited to a treating physician; it is equally applicable to all medical service providers. The judge erred in concluding that the carrier’s liability for the claimant’s hospital bill terminated when Dr. Miller was put on notice that the hospital was unauthorized to treat the claimant.

As to the issue raised on cross-appeal, the order is REVERSED and REMANDED with directions that the deputy commissioner enter an order directing the employer/carrier to pay the hospital bill for the claimant’s full period of confinement.

MILLS and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

412 So. 2d 914, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yarnall-warehouse-home-insurance-v-jones-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack