You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Beasley v. M & E Pieco

Citations: 678 So. 2d 519; 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9131; 1996 WL 491696Docket: No. 95-1449

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 30, 1996; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the claimant's petition concerning the payment of medical bills for services rendered by Dr. Abeckjerr was dismissed by the judge of compensation claims (JCC) because the employer/carrier (E/C) had categorized it under utilization review due to alleged overutilization of chiropractic services, thereby stripping the JCC of jurisdiction over the claim. This procedural handling is consistent with existing case law, such as Furtick v. William Shults Contractor, which precludes JCC jurisdiction in similar contexts. Despite this dismissal, the claimant's request for additional chiropractic care remained validly within the JCC's jurisdiction. During the hearing, the JCC instructed the E/C to provide three alternative chiropractor options for the claimant. Nevertheless, this decision was not accurately documented in the written order. Consequently, the case was reversed and remanded for correction to ensure the order accurately reflects the judicial directives regarding the provision of medical care. Judges Ervin, Kahn, and Davis unanimously concurred with this procedural outcome.

Legal Issues Addressed

Error in Judicial Orders

Application: A judicial order must accurately reflect the decisions made during hearings, and failure to do so constitutes an error requiring reversal and remand for clarification.

Reasoning: The written order failed to reflect this decision regarding the medical issue. Therefore, while the dismissal of the petition was correct, the omission of the medical issue in the order was an error.

Jurisdiction of Judge of Compensation Claims

Application: The judge of compensation claims lacks jurisdiction over claims that have been submitted for utilization review due to overutilization of services.

Reasoning: The employer/carrier (E/C) had submitted the case for utilization review due to overutilization of chiropractic services, thus denying the JCC jurisdiction over that claim.

Provision of Alternative Medical Care

Application: The judge of compensation claims has the authority to direct the employer/carrier to provide alternative medical care options when the claimant seeks additional care.

Reasoning: The JCC recognized this issue during the hearing and directed the E/C to provide three alternative chiropractors to the claimant.