Case File
While a trip to New York to visit family might have boosted an injured worker’s mental health, because it wasn’t a trip to the doctor, it didn’t count as “medically necessary” under Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.
Case
Purple Pride, Inc. v. Burgess, No. 1D2025-0990 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 03/18/26)
What Happened?
A worker suffered a work-related motor vehicle accident that resulted in quadriplegia. The worker required around-the-clock attendant care for which the Employer/Carrier accepted responsibility.
The worker prevailed on his claim for additional medical benefits to take a non-medical trip to visit family in New York, which included traveling attendants, a Hoyer lift, commode chair, and other durable medical equipment under “the maxim that industry is responsible for what industry causes.”
The E/C appealed the Judge of Compensation Claims’ decision on the basis that the JCC awarded benefits despite finding that the trip was not medically necessary.
Rule of Law
Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law requires employers to furnish “medically necessary” remedial treatment, care, and attendance to an injured employee.
What the Court Said
According to the court, because the JCC concluded that the worker’s trip to New York was not medically necessary, it was error to grant the worker additional medical benefits he sought for the trip.
The court explained that caselaw indicated there was a difference between travel that is medically necessary and travel that “merely improves a claimant’s quality of life,” as follows:
Marlowe v. Dogs Only Grooming, 589 So. 2d 990 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991). Transportation services to the store and other places for “various and sundry purposes” constitute quality of life activities, in contrast to transportation necessary for medical treatment.
Timothy Bowser Const. Co. v. Kowalski, 605 So. 2d 885 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992). Quality-of-life travel includes visits to the beach, the grocery store, the movies, and the mall.
Broadspire v. Jones, 164 So. 3d 708 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015). 164 So. 3d 708 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015). Quality-of-life travel includes visits to the park.
Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Grier, 648 So. 2d 805 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994). Quality-of-life travel includes visits to a worker’s mothers home.
Hendry Cnty. Corr. Inst. v. Hughes, 412 So. 2d 922 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.1982). Quality-of-life travel includes transportation to a worker’s father’s funeral.
The court explained that because the worker’s proposed trip to New York was not medically necessary, it could, “at best,” be categorized as travel to improve the worker’s quality of life.
“The Legislature has not included such quality-of-life travel within the ambit of medical benefits available under the Workers’ Compensation Law,” the court wrote. “It was therefore error for the JCC to grant benefits for a trip that the JCC determined was not medically necessary.”
Verdict: The court set aside the JCC’s Final Compensation Order.
Takeaway
In Florida, transportation other than to a doctor reflects on quality of life rather than medical necessity and is generally considered gratuitous and not compensable.
