Injured Worker Intentionally Deprived Of Necessary Medical Care

The summary of the case sounds almost academic. Claims based on injuries intentionally inflicted by an insurance carrier during claims administration process are not barred by workers’ compensation immunity JOSEPH THRISTINO v. CRAWFORD & COMPANY; PARTNERS IN HEALTH; TENET HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, 4th District, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D1761a

But the allegations of the complaint are far from academic.

[Mr. Thristino] filed a survival action on behalf of his deceased wife, Lynne Thristino, against Tenet Health Care Corporation and Crawford & Company. Tenet was Mrs. Thristino’s employer, and Crawford was hired by Tenet to handle her worker’s compensation claim. After Mrs. Thristino died, appellant sought damages against Tenet and Crawford for intentionally and purposefully depriving her of necessary care and services prescribed by her physicians. The trial court dismissed appellant’s second amended complaint with prejudice as to Crawford.

Lynne Thristino was employed as a cardiac technician at North Ridge Medical Center in Broward County, Florida, when she was severely injured on the job. She suffered extreme injuries to her head, spine, and face. Her condition deteriorated over the next fourteen years, until her death in May 2001. In his second amended complaint, appellant made detailed factual allegations of intentional mistreatment or neglect by Tenet and Crawford in their management of Mrs. Thristino’s care.

{The Florida Supreme Court has ruled in] Aguilera v. Inservices, 905 So. 2d 84, 93 (Fla. 2005) that –

[a]n insurance carrier who utilizes the process of administering benefits to intentionally injure a worker is not afforded immunity. Only injuries that occur within the system, “workplace injuries,” are covered under the workers’ compensation law, not injuries intentionally inflicted by an insurance carrier during the claims administration process.

Lynne Thristino’s care will now get the public scrutiny and jury consideration it deserves. The Appellate Court overturned the Trial Court’s dismissal of the case.

The summary of the case sounds almost academic. Claims based on injuries intentionally inflicted by an insurance carrier during claims administration process are not barred by workers’ compensation immunity JOSEPH THRISTINO v. CRAWFORD & COMPANY; PARTNERS IN HEALTH; TENET HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, 4th District, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D1761a

But the allegations of the complaint are far from academic.

[Mr. Thristino] filed a survival action on behalf of his deceased wife, Lynne Thristino, against Tenet Health Care Corporation and Crawford & Company. Tenet was Mrs. Thristino’s employer, and Crawford was hired by Tenet to handle her worker’s compensation claim. After Mrs. Thristino died, appellant sought damages against Tenet and Crawford for intentionally and purposefully depriving her of necessary care and services prescribed by her physicians. The trial court dismissed appellant’s second amended complaint with prejudice as to Crawford.

Lynne Thristino was employed as a cardiac technician at North Ridge Medical Center in Broward County, Florida, when she was severely injured on the job. She suffered extreme injuries to her head, spine, and face. Her condition deteriorated over the next fourteen years, until her death in May 2001. In his second amended complaint, appellant made detailed factual allegations of intentional mistreatment or neglect by Tenet and Crawford in their management of Mrs.Thristino’s care.

{The Florida Supreme Court has ruled in] Aguilera v. Inservices, 905 So. 2d 84, 93 (Fla. 2005 )that –

[a]n insurance carrier who utilizes the process of administering benefits to intentionally injure a worker is not afforded immunity. Only injuries that occur within the system, “workplace injuries,” are covered under the workers’ compensation law, not injuries intentionally inflicted by an insurance carrier during the claims administration process.

Lynne Thristino’s care will now get the public scrutiny and jury consideration it deserves. The Appellate Court overturned the Trial Court’s dismissal of the case.