Cases

Court affirmed JCC's award of lawn care because competent and substantial evidence supported the JCC's finding that such care would improve the claimant's compensable conditions of depression and anxiety.  Court also affirmed the JCC's award of attendant care, a podiatrist, an AFO brace and evaluation of the need for specialized shoes for the claimant. The employer/carrier forfeited the right to contest the medical necessity of these items by failing to timely respond to a written request by an authorized health care provider pursuant to Section 440.13(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Court, however, reversed the award for home renovations. 

In workers' compensation, the employer/carrier may be responsible for providing an accessible living environment under the statutory requirement for the furnishing of medically necessary apparatus.  The question in this case is whether there was competent and substantial evidence to support the medical necessity of the specific home renovations that were awarded by the JCC.

In attempting to prove the compensability of the home renovations, claimant's attorney employed the services of a registered nurse with rehabilitation experience and training to prepare a home assessment which required such renovations.  Court determined, however, the nurse was not able to testify as to medical necessity since she was not a physician.  The nurse's testimony was not sufficient to create medical necessity even though the authorized pain management physician deferred to the nurse's opinions concerning medical necessity of any home renovations. This is even assuming that the authorized pain management physician in this case properly deferred to the nurse.  Concurring opinion.