1st DCA 1991) (“[W]e hold that claimant is entitled to that treatment of his diabetic condition necessary for effective treatment of his compen-sable injuries. It will, however, be necessary for the JCC to make specific findings as to whether such diabetes treatment was indeed a necessary adjunct to the treatment of claimant’s compensable injuries.”); Roth Bros. of Fla. v. Spodris, 451 So.2d 947, 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (“[Treatment for a condition not shown to be causally related to the compensable injury should be the responsibility of the employer ‘[i]f ... one of the primary purposes of the treatment is also removal of a hindrance to recover from the compensable accident. ...’ Decks, Inc. of Florida v. Wright, 389 So.2d 1074, 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).”); Gonzales, 388 So.2d at 336 (<HOLDING>). The JCC identified attendant care that had
holding that claimant is entitled to ongoing medical treatment if such is geared toward management of the claimants injury holding that a claimant establishes a prima facie case for compensable medical treatment where a qualified physician indicates treatment was necessary for a workrelated condition recognizing that a workers compensation insurer is responsible for covering any injury caused by the treatment of an industrial injury holding that a tortfeasor is required to pay the expenses of over treatment or unnecessary medical treatment unless such treatment was incurred by the victim in bad faith  holding ec is not responsible for medical treatment required independently by the subsequent noncompensable injury when the removal of a hindrance to recovery from the compensable injury is merely an incidental effect of such treatment