Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

522 So. 2d 435

Docket No. 87-402.

Sanchez v. Security Sales Co.

Hernando SANCHEZ, Appellant, v. SECURITY SALES COMPANY and Zurich Insurance Company, Appellees.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 10, 1988.

Rehearing Denied April 12, 1988.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1988-03-10

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1990

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“the employer/carrier should not be held responsible for the medical bills from West Volusia Memorial Hospital and from Drs. Morgan and Hiatt. These bills were incurred as a result of a sonogram which had been recommended by Dr. Fulton because he suspected the claimant may have an aortic aneurysm. Dr. Fulton testified that at the time he recommended this test, he did not feel the condition was related to his industrial accident, but rather felt that such a recommendation was good medical practice. The principle is well settled that — [w]henever the purpose of the diagnostic test is to determine the cause of a claimant's symptoms, which symptoms may be related to a compensable accident, the cost of the diagnostic test is compensable. (citation omitted) This is true even though later it should be determined that the claimant suffered from both compensable and noncompensable conditions.”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Sumner v. Gardinier, Inc., 556 So. 2d 1195 - Prince v. PRINCE INS. SERVICES

Relies on 491 So. 2d 585 - Nealy v. City of West Palm Beach · 500 So. 2d 698 - Abbott v. Price Plumbing, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1988-03-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Renee R. Pelzman of Levine, Busch, Schnepper & Stein, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

¶2Michael Fichtel of Adams, Kelley, Kronenberg & Kelley, Miami, for appellees.

¶3JOANOS, Judge.

¶4Hernando Sanchez appeals the final order of the deputy commissioner which denied payment of doctor and hospital bills. Sanchez argues that the bills were for medical services related to his original compensable injury.

¶5We reverse the deputy's denial of claimant's request for payment of hospital and doctor bills incurred when he was admitted to the hospital for diagnostic testing involving his heart. The record reveals that, upon arrival at the emergency room complaining of chest pains, claimant was admitted to the hospital for two days of observation and testing because of claimant's previous history of arrhythmia which arose during surgery for a compensable injury. It was determined after testing, upon claimant's release from the hospital, that *436 claimant's chest pain was not related to his prior surgery for the compensable injury. However, we find that but for such prior history of arrhythmia which surfaced during the surgery, claimant might not have been admitted to the hospital for diagnostic testing. Further, "[w]henever the purpose of the diagnostic test is to determine the cause of claimant's symptoms, which symptoms may be related to a compensable accident, the cost of the diagnostic test is compensable." Nealy v. City of West Palm Beach,491 So.2d 585, 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). See also Abbott v. Price Plumbing Inc., and F.C.C.I.,500 So.2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), and cases cited within.

¶6Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶7BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

/522/so2d/435 · .json · Public domain