TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Boykin v. American Marine Products, Inc.

Michael C. BOYKIN v. AMERICAN MARINE PRODUCTS, INC.

Boykin v. Am. Marine Prods., Inc., 395 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 10, 1981
Docket
No. TT-381
Judges
Joanos, McCord, Shivers
Citations
395 So. 2d 11631981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19840

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

Claimant urges the deputy erred by denying all temporary benefits. Although the reason in the order for denying such benefits may at first appear erroneous as a matter of law, the deputy clearly indicates in the transcript that he denied temporary benefits because claimant’s condition did not result in a loss of wage earning capacity. In turn, this determination is supported by competent substantial evidence.

The issues raised on cross appeal are without merit except for Point III which needs clarification. The employer and carrier challenge the payment of medical bills, including a hospital bill, for an uncompensable heart condition, pericarditis, which independently accompanied the com-pensable small airways disease. We find that before the diagnosis of the separate diseases, claimant’s combined symptoms caused his initial treatment, his hospitalization, and the need for diagnosis by Dr. Flores. The purpose of the diagnostic process was to determine the cause for the combined and even overlapping symptoms. The after-the-fact determination of causation does not affect the compensability of *1164 such diagnostic procedures. See generally, Barris v. Toppers of Florida, Inc., 382 So.2d 441 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). However, to the extent that Dr. Hoe and Dr. Flores treated claimant’s pericarditis after its diagnosis by Dr. Flores, the medical bills related to this treatment are not reimbursable. If the parties cannot agree to the uncompensable amount, the deputy may take further evidence to make this determination.

The employer and carrier also complain the deputy improperly ordered further treatment by Dr. Barratta, a cardiologist. The record suggests that Dr. Barratta practices with Dr. Flores. However, there’s no evidence that Dr. Barratta treated claimant, that he is qualified to treat claimant’s lung disease, or that claimant requested a change in physicians. We amend this portion of the order to authorize Dr. Flores to further treat claimant for the small airways disease.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

McCORD, SHIVERS and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1986: 11989: 11990: 119862026peak 1986 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Nealy v. City of West Palm Beach491 So. 2d 585 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)
  2. Perry v. Ridgecrest International548 So. 2d 826 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
  3. Prince v. PRINCE INS. SERVICES556 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Most recent

  1. Prince v. PRINCE INS. SERVICES556 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
  2. Perry v. Ridgecrest International548 So. 2d 826 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
  3. Nealy v. City of West Palm Beach491 So. 2d 585 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Barris v. Toppers of Fla., Inc., 382 So. 2d 441 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list