489 So. 2d 118 - Hill v. Beverly Enterprises’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 440 So. 2d 49 - Kronz v. State · 473 So. 2d 249 - Cal Kovens Const. v. Lott · 466 So. 2d 415 - Fuchs Baking Co. v. Estate of Szlosek · 455 So. 2d 1097 - Watson v. Freeman Decorating Co. · 487 So. 2d 388 - Ellerbee v. CONCORDE ROOFING CO.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the employer/earrier fails to provide alternative care or seek a ruling from the deputy commissioner, then the employee may obtain alternative care at the expense of the employer/earrier subject only to reasonableness and necessity. The employee may obtain a ruling on the reasonableness and necessity in advance or seek the alternative care and obtain such ruling after-wards.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the employer had offered alternative care, and the employee had objected to such alternative care, the burden would then have been on the employee to obtain an order from the deputy approving a different physician. The employee would have to have done this before obtaining unauthorized treatment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the employee is required to request the care sought. If the employer/carrier fails or neglects to provide the treatment, the employee may seek the treatment without first obtaining an order from the deputy commissioner. The employee does so at the peril of having the deputy commissioner later rule that such treatment was not reasonable and necessary. See Fuchs Baking Company v. [Estate of] Szlosek, 466 So.2d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.