CITY OF LEESBURG AND U. S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
THOMAS W. BALLIET, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a workers' compensation award for attendant care services, holding that the deputy commissioner failed to make specific findings regarding whether the employer had notice of the claimant's need for such services and improperly included non-compensable housekeeping services in the award.
The court held that the deputy commissioner must make specific findings regarding whether the employer had actual or imputed notice of the claimant's need for attendant care services, and that housekeeping services are not compensable under Section 440.13 and must be apportioned out from any award.
[1] An employer or carrier must have notice of an employee's need for remedial treatment, care, and attendance to be liable for compensation for such services, unless the nat…
[2] Housekeeping services are not compensable under Florida Statutes, Section 440.13.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“an employee shall not be entitled to recover any amount personally expended for remedial treatment, care, and attendance unless the employee shall have requested the employer to provide such treatment or service and the employer failed to do so, or unless the nature of the injury required such treatment, nursing, and services and the employer, having knowledge of such injury, failed to provide the same”
Establishes the statutory requirements for compensation, requiring either employee request and employer failure or employer knowledge of injury and failure to provide services
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant Balliet received attendant care services from his father more than four years before filing a claim for compensation. The deputy commissioner…
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.
PER CURIAM.
The employer and carrier appeal a workers’ compensation order awarding compensation for attendant care services which were provided to claimant more than four years prior to the claim for such services. Appellants argue they had no notice of the need for attendant care services. Alternatively, they contend the services rendered were primarily housekeeping services which are not compensable.
Florida Statutes, Section 440.13, provides that an employee shall not be entitled to recover any amount personally expended for remedial treatment, care, and attendance unless the employee shall have requested the employer to provide such treatment or service and the employer failed to do so, or unless the nature of the injury required such treatment, nursing, and services and the employer, having knowledge of such injury, failed to provide the same. In his order, the deputy commissioner did not make a specific finding as to whether the employer or carrier had notice of claimant’s need for attendant care services. It may be that the deputy concluded that the nature of the injury was such as to impute knowledge claimant’s need for attendant care services to the employer and carrier. Silver Springs Sportswear v. Marlin, 389 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). We remand this case to the deputy commissioner for an expression of his findings with regard to this notice issue.
As to the second point raised by appellants, it does appear that some of the services listed by the deputy commissioner as the basis for the award of attendant care services included housekeeping services provided claimant by his father. Housekeeping services are not compensable under Florida Statutes, Section 440.13. South Coast Construction Company v. Chizauskas, 172 So. 2d 442 (Fla.1965). On remand, the deputy commissioner should distinguish between the types of services provided to claimant and apportion out the non-com-pensable housekeeping portion of the services provided. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Weaver, 226 So. 2d 801 (Fla.1969).
REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH, LARRY G. SMITH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
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)…r attendant care services obtained by her, even though not first requested, if the nature of the injury requires such nursing services and if the employer, having knowledge of the injury, failed to provide such services. City of Leesburg v. Balliet, 413 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The nature of the claimant’s injury and necessary treatment may be such as to impute knowledge of claimant’s need for attendant care services to the employer. Ibid., Silver Springs Sportswear v. Marlin, supra. There was no error…
-
Aino's Custom Slip Covers & Nationwide Ins. Co. v. DeLUCIA, 533 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…nd the deputy should reconsider this issue. Finally, the E/C challenge the award of 24-hour attendant care benefits to the spouse. As a general rule, household duties a spouse would normally provide are not compensable. City of Leesburg v. Balliet, 413 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The deputy must try to apportion the time spent so that the E/C pay [*866] only for attendant care rendered to the claimant, and not for the spouse’s performance of ordinary household duties. Sealey Mattress Co. v. Game, 466 So.…
-
Standard Blasting & Coating & Claims Ctr. v. Hayman, 476 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…returning home). She testified that he sleeps approximately 6 hours per night. Earlier cases stand for the proposition that ordinary household chores which would have been provided anyway are not compensable. See, e.g., City of Leesburg v. Balliet, 413 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The 1983 legislature amended Fla. Stat. § 440.13(2)(d) to make clear that this is its legislative intent.1 More recent cases state that the deputy must try to apportion the time so that employer/carrier pay for attendant care bu…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- PAN Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Weaver, 226 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1969)
- S. Coast Constr. Co. & Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Josie Chizauskas & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 172 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1965)
- Silver Springs Sportswear & Allstate Ins. Co. v. Marlin, 389 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)