Case Name: GREYNOLDS PARK MANOR and R. P. Hewitt & Associates of Florida, Inc., Appellants, v. Lovie GEORGE, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-01-06
Citations: 417 So. 2d 990
Docket Number: No. AC-84
Parties: GREYNOLDS PARK MANOR and R. P. Hewitt & Associates of Florida, Inc., Appellants, v. Lovie GEORGE, Appellee.
Judges: ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 417
Pages: 990–994

Head Matter:
GREYNOLDS PARK MANOR and R. P. Hewitt & Associates of Florida, Inc., Appellants, v. Lovie GEORGE, Appellee.
No. AC-84.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jan. 6, 1982.
Opinion Amended and Clarified on Denial of Rehearing Aug. 16, 1982.
Steven Kronenberg of Adams, Kelley & Kronenberg, Miami, for appellants.
L. Barry Keyfetz of Keyfetz & Poses, Miami, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a worker's compensation order directing the carrier to directly reimburse the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare (Medicare) and Blue Cross for payment of certain medical bills made by those entities on behalf of claimant. We agree with appellant's argument that a more general order conforming to White v. Bell Fruit Co., 4 F.C.R. 382 (1961) would have been appropriate in this case.
In White the deputy commissioner had ordered the carrier to pay for remedial treatment and care under the following terms:
Pay for the remedial treatment, care and attendance in the amounts and to the persons named in paragraph 29 of the above and foregoing order provided, however, that if any one or more of such persons advise that such amounts have theretofore been paid to them by or for the account of the claimant then the amount thereof shall be paid to the party making such payment. (Emphasis in original.)
The Commission said that the deputy commissioner did not err in ordering the employer to pay the costs of the remedial care furnished to the employee, but the Commission noted as follows:
However, it does not appear that there is a lien, as the result of the phraseology in the deputy's Order, against costs of remedial treatment payable to the claimant. Actually, it appears that the effect of the Order of the deputy is to provide reimbursement to any party who has paid costs of any remedial expenses incurred by the claimant. We feel that the deputy's Order should have confined itself to a statement that the employer pay for the costs of such remedial treatment and care incurred by the claimant, leaving to the parties the settling of any differences they may have regarding any contractual rights that may exist among the parties involved, for example, reimbursement of costs of remedial treatment paid by virtue of a private insurance policy covering sickness and accidents.
Apparently the Commission disapproved of the deputy's order because although it would have been proper to reimburse claimant, specifying that there was a lien against those funds in favor of those who had paid on claimant's behalf, it was not proper to direct the employer to pay directly persons or entities which had paid for the care but were not actually before the deputy. Similarly, in the instant ease the deputy did not err in ordering the carrier to pay the costs of the remedial care furnished to the employee — the parties do not dispute that the carrier is responsible for payment for the medical care that has been furnished to the claimant — however, the order specifically directed the employer to reimburse entities which were not before the deputy.
In order to conform to the decision in White, therefore, we reverse and remand to the deputy commissioner for entry of an order directing the employer/carrier to pay for the "remedial treatment and care incurred by the claimant, leaving to the parties the settling of any differences they may have regarding any contractual rights that may exist among the parties involved . . . " White at 384. Our decision does not mean that employer/carrier is temporarily absolved from the duty to pay for the treatment and care which was provided to the claimant. It means that the treatment and care are to be paid for by employer/carrier and collateral disputes as to reimbursement of outside entities not before the deputy commissioner are to be settled among the parties involved.
We agree with appellant's second argument that under Wekiwa Concrete v. Reddick, 396 So.2d 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), inasmuch as the record does not show that an order has been entered approving any fee arrangement between claimant and her attorney as reasonable and directing the manner of enforcing a lien, the deputy erred in ordering that compensation checks be made payable to both claimant and her attorney.
Reversed and remanded for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.