THATCHER GLASS MANUFACTURING CO. AND CONTINENTAL INS. CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
SHIRLEY M. BUYNA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The deputy's award of compensation for nursing services provided by the claimant's husband is supported by competent substantial testimony.
The claimant is permanently and totally disabled due to an industrial injury, requiring extensive personal care. Her husband provides these nursing se…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Medical Necessity cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
The employer/earrier (E/C) challenge a workers’ compensation order, contending that the Deputy Commissioner (deputy) erred by awarding compensation to claimant’s husband for nursing services. We agree and reverse.
In 1968 claimant sustained a compensable injury. A claim was subsequently filed to compensate claimant’s husband for various services he performed for claimant. The deputy concluded that claimant’s husband performed nursing care type services which she needed. Accordingly, the deputy awarded the husband compensation for three hours per day at the minimum wage prevailing at the time the services were performed.
There is no competent substantial evidence that claimant’s disability, i.e. the nature of her compensable injury and process of recovery, required the services in question as a matter of medical need under the standards of § 440.13, Fla.Stat., for the ten-year period in question and continuing. Accordingly, it was error for the deputy to award compensation for nursing services to claimant’s husband.
REVERSED.
WENTWORTH, J., concurs.
MILLS, J., dissents.
[*1030] MILLS, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent. I would affirm. The deputy’s award of compensation to the claimant’s husband for nursing services provided his wife is supported by competent substantial medical and lay testimony.
Because of an industrially related injury, claimant is and will be permanently and totally disabled and unable to wash her hair, put her hair in rollers, shave her legs and underarms, take a shower, wash parts of her body, dress herself, and rub out knots and spasms that frequently occur in her injured shoulder and arm. Also, when claimant’s left arm is manipulated or exerted, she has forearm jerking, clawing of the hand, and hopping of the hand, which require restraining by the husband. Her husband performs these tasks during his time off from his work.
There is no doubt that the services rendered claimant by her husband are of a kind not ordinarily performed by a husband for his wife and that the services are palliative nursing services. I cannot believe that any husband or wife would consider these services to be merely housekeeping services ordinarily performed by a husband.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walt Disney World Co. v. Harrison, 443 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…tial medical and lay evidence in the record to support the deputy’s finding that claimant’s immobility, because of her injuries and the body cast, required that she have nonskilled attendant care during this period. Thatcher Glass Mfg. Co. v. Buyna, 411 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Although claimant was unfortunately left on her own much of the time, the evidence also establishes that some attendant care and services were provided by claimant’s friends and mother. Claimant, therefore, was entitled to recov…
-
Abdullah Khawam v. Collision Clinics Int'l, Inc., 413 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…is case is REMANDED for consideration of this factor. SHIVERS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur. . This view is in accord with numerous decisions of this court and the Industrial Relations Commission. See, e.g., Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Co. v. Buyna, 411 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Lopez v. Pennsuco Cement & Aggregates, Inc., 401 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Clay Hyder Trucking Lines, Inc. v. Coffinbury, 9 F.C.R. 199 (1975); Craftsmen’s Village, Inc. v. Benach, 8 F.C.R. 372 (1974), cert. denied, 302 So.…
-
Catv Support Servs., Inc. v. Philip B. Lohr for the Estate of Robbie Gene Booe, 509 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…First, although it is the claimant’s burden to “prove by competent, substantial evidence the quantity, quality, and duration of the attendant services claimed,” Walt Disney World, 443 So. 2d at 393 (citing Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Co. v. Buyna, 411 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)), the employer/carrier, as indicated in the deputy commissioner’s order, introduced no witnesses at the hearing below for the purpose of refuting claimant’s contention that he was entitled to attendant care benefits. Second, clai…