Kentucky Fried Chicken v. Tyler

3 Citing cases

  1. Grainger v. Indian River Trans

    869 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 6 times
    Holding JCC applied incorrect standard where he ruled record did not show claimant's workplace injury was MCC of his need for an evaluation

    A claimant must establish a causal relationship between his injury and the compensable accident in order to secure treatment, but not to be entitled to diagnostic testing to determine the cause of his symptoms. See Kohout v. Benefit Administrators, 781 So.2d 1164, 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Kentucky Fried Chicken v. Tyler, 716 So.2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). The claimant in the present case established through the testimony and medical records that the nature of his injury made the requested evaluation reasonably necessary to determine whether the industrial accident was the cause of his symptoms.

  2. Selecta Farms v. Martinez

    768 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 1 times
    Reversing an award of a psychiatric evaluation and possible treatment as nothing in the record linked any need the claimant may have had for this benefit to the claimant's compensable injury

    This is a test of proximate medical causation, however, not major contributing cause, because . . . the mental conditions are manifestations of the original physical injury." (citation omitted)); Kentucky Fried Chicken v. Tyler, 716 So.2d 295, 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (explaining that letter from doctor recommending that claimant "be evaluated to determine whether what seemed to be depression was related to her accident at work," together with another doctor's recommendation for psychiatric evaluation, supported award of psychiatric evaluation but did not constitute competent substantial evidence to support JCC's determination that psychiatric condition was direct and immediate result of industrial accident and, therefore, award of prospective psychiatric treatment was reversed). In all other respects, we affirm.

  3. Solar Pane Insulating Glass, Inc. v. Hanssen

    727 So. 2d 961 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 8 times
    Holding claimant/employer's knowledge of continued use of corset would not be imputed to carrier for statute of limitations purposes

    The purpose of requiring that injured employees receive timely advice of their rights, benefits, and obligations under the Workers' Compensation Law is to facilitate the prompt receipt of benefits due them. Whether or not an injured employee is aware of the statute of limitations, the statute cuts off claims two years after a claimant learns of possible entitlement to benefits, if the claimant does not earlier ask for or receive benefits. See, e.g., Kentucky Fried Chicken v. Tyler, 716 So.2d 295, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). In concluding that the record showed that the claimant in MacDonald was unaware of her possible entitlement to a number of pertinent benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law, until her lawyer later informed her of them, we took issue with the lower tribunal's analysis.