Greetings,

A standard claim that many claimant attorney’s list on their PFB’s is for transportation to medical appointments.

The law on whether and when we are required to provide transportation is fairly liberally construed towards the claimant.  The Williams case (attached) states a carrier must either furnish transportation or pay the reasonable costs thereof (AKA medical mileage).   The claimant does not need to prove medical necessity.

If a claimant asks for transportation because their vehicle is unreliable, they can’t afford the gas, their spouse uses the vehicle, their injury prevents them from driving without pain or difficulty, etc… a JCC will undoubtedly award it.  Each case is fact specific, but in general if there is any plausible reason for them requesting transportation, it will likely be awarded.  The fact the claimant has a car and a driver’s license may not be enough to prevail.

The one benefit, assuming all goes as planned, is it can be a way to ensure the claimant does not miss appointments and moves the claim toward conclusion.

On another note, most carriers are paying medical mileage at the state employee rate of $.445 a mile.   On this issue, there is no statutory rate for WC since it was removed in 1994.   The JCC can determine whatever rate is reasonable.  Watch out for a claimant’s attorney asking for the “IRS” rate on a PFB.  It is currently $.54 for business travel.  

It may not make sense to litigate either of these issues under the hourly fee scenario in many circumstances.

Sincerely,
Morgan Indek | Partner

 

FREDERICK WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. ONYX WASTE SERVICES OF FLORIDA and SEDGWICK CMS, Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D10-5938

Opinion filed July 7, 2011.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.

Timothy M. Basquill, Judge.

Date of Accident: October 17, 2003.

Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Carlos D. Cabrera of Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Morrow &

Schefer, P.A., Hollywood, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM

In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) that denies permanent total disability (PTD) benefits, transportation to medical appointments, and a motion to disqualify filed against the JCC. We affirm the JCC’s denial of PTD benefits and the motion to disqualify without comment. We reverse the denial of transportation to medical appointments because the JCC improperly required Claimant to prove that transportation itself was medically necessary, a conclusion contrary to the settled law on the issue.

Here, Claimant, who concedes that he is physically capable of driving, filed a claim for transportation to authorized medical appointments because his car was broken down and he lacked reliable transportation. The JCC concluded that the Employer/Carrier (E/C) is not responsible for Claimant’s transportation to medical appointments or the cost thereof and denied same, because no doctor wrote a prescription for transportation to medical appointments, and Claimant was not medically restricted from driving.

It is well-settled law that a workers’ compensation carrier must either furnish transportation to authorized medical appointments or pay the reasonable cost thereof — because travel is incidental to medical care, not because the transportation itself is medical care or attendance. See Mobley v. Jack & Son Plumbing, 170 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1964); see also Remington v. City of Ocala, 940 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Sam’s Club v. Bair, 678 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Accordingly, transportation to medical appointments does not, itself, have to be independently medically necessary. See Bair, 678 So. 2d at 904. Because the JCC improperly denied transportation to medical appointments or the cost thereof, we reverse and remand. On remand, the JCC shall enter an order providing that the E/C is responsible for transportation to medical appointments or the reasonable cost thereof, with the E/C having the first opportunity to determine the means of transportation. See generally, Polk County v. Varnado, 576 So. 2d 833, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (explaining policy of allowing E/C first opportunity to determine means and methods of providing medical benefits).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED, in part, and REMANDED for additional proceedings.

VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO AND HAWKES, JJ., CONCUR.