Narrative Opinion Summary
The workers’ compensation order is affirmed in part, but the denial of payment for Dr. Faris' bills is reversed due to inconsistency with the finding that Dr. Faris was authorized. This internal inconsistency necessitates clarification or modification of the order. Relevant case precedents cited include Gulf Life Ins. v. Mullaly and Department of Business Regulation v. DeArmitt. The decision is affirmed in part and reversed in part, with a remand for further clarification or modification. Judges Booth and Allen concur with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Authorization of Medical Treatment in Workers' Compensationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reversed the denial of payment for Dr. Faris' bills because the denial was inconsistent with the finding that Dr. Faris was authorized.
Reasoning: The workers’ compensation order is affirmed in part, but the denial of payment for Dr. Faris' bills is reversed due to inconsistency with the finding that Dr. Faris was authorized.
Internal Inconsistency in Judicial Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The presence of an internal inconsistency in the order regarding the authorization of Dr. Faris necessitated remand for clarification or modification.
Reasoning: This internal inconsistency necessitates clarification or modification of the order.
Partial Affirmation and Reversal of Judicial Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision was affirmed in part and reversed in part, illustrating the court's ability to uphold certain aspects while remanding others for further clarification.
Reasoning: The decision is affirmed in part and reversed in part, with a remand for further clarification or modification.