From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chism v. Hillsborough Co. Sch. Bd.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jul 9, 2001
788 So. 2d 418 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Opinion

Case No. 1D00-1306

Opinion filed July 9, 2001.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims, Honorable William D. Douglas, Judge.

Carl A. Feddeler, III, Esquire, Smith, Feddeler, Smith Miles, P.A., Lakeland, for Appellant.

Pamela A. Walton, Esquire, Barr, Murman, Tonelli, Herzfeld Rubin, Tampa, for Appellees.


Claimant Helen Chism appeals the JCC's denial of payment for her past psychiatric medical treatment with Dr. Arturo Gonzalez. Because the JCC's denial did not adequately address whether this past treatment was medically necessary as provided by Section 440.13(2), Florida Statutes (1995), we reverse and remand for consideration. See Bradley v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 609 So.2d 748, 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (ruling that the JCC did not properly consider legal standards of § 440.13(2), which authorizes medically necessary treatment as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery requires).

Although Ms. Chism did not request authorization for her treatment from Dr. Gonzalez from the employer/carrier, the e/c became aware of Dr. Gonzalez's treatment. See Workman v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 590 So.2d 1035, 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (denial of claim for past medical benefits reversed and remanded when e/c became aware of treatment and JCC did not consider reasonableness and medical necessity of treatment).

We affirm in all other respects.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

ERVIN and KAHN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Chism v. Hillsborough Co. Sch. Bd.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jul 9, 2001
788 So. 2d 418 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
Case details for

Chism v. Hillsborough Co. Sch. Bd.

Case Details

Full title:HELEN CHISM Appellant, v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD and RSKCO.…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Jul 9, 2001

Citations

788 So. 2d 418 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)