From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mark Decker Construction v. Koppe

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jun 23, 1992
599 So. 2d 782 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Opinion

No. 91-1611.

June 23, 1992.

An Appeal from an Order of the Judge of Compensation Claims; Patrick Murphy, Judge.

Gerald W. Pierce, of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes Holt, P.A., Fort Myers, for appellants.

Donna L. Schnorr of Goldberg, Goldstein Buckely, P.A., Fort Myers, and Bill McCabe of Shepherd, McCabe Cooley, Longwood, for appellee/Clifton Koppe.

Michael J. D'Agostino of D'Agostino Budz, St. James City, and Diane H. Tutt of Diane H. Tutt, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellees/Dunnson Const. and Claims Center.


We affirm the compensation award in the instant case except as to the extent it may allow an award for remedial medical care following claimant's date of maximum medical improvement from the second accident. Under most circumstances, including those at issue here, an award of further remedial treatment after a claimant has reached MMI is error. Old Cove Condo v. Curry, 511 So.2d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Universal Corporation v. Lawson, 447 So.2d 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

In that regard, we also note that the judge of compensation claims did not make a specific finding in his order as to the pertinent dates of maximum medical improvement. Accordingly, that portion of the order awarding further remedial treatment is reversed and the cause remanded to the JCC to clarify his order and to make a specific finding of maximum medical improvement relative to any award of medical benefits.

BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mark Decker Construction v. Koppe

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jun 23, 1992
599 So. 2d 782 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
Case details for

Mark Decker Construction v. Koppe

Case Details

Full title:MARK DECKER CONSTRUCTION AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE, APPELLANTS, v…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Jun 23, 1992

Citations

599 So. 2d 782 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)