CHARLES MCARTHUR DAIRIES AND WHITING NATIONAL SERVICES, INC.,
v.
LAURENT LAROSE, 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 court affirmed that services rendered by a claimant's sister-in-law constitute compensable remedial services under Florida workers' compensation law, not mere housekeeping, because the need for services resulting from a compensable injury, rather than their nature, determines compensability.
The need for attendant services generated by a compensable injury, rather than the nature of those services, determines whether the employer/carrier must provide them.
[1] In workers' compensation cases, the necessity for attendant services resulting from a compensable injury, rather than the classification or nature of those services, dete…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“It is the need for, rather than the nature of, the attendant services generated as a result of a compensable injury which determines whether those services are to be provided by the employer/carrier.”
The court cited Khawam v. Collision Clinics Int., Inc. to establish the controlling legal standard for determining compensability of attendant services.
A claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for services rendered by his sister-in-law, which the employer/carrier characterized as housekeeping …
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 Compensable Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The issue presented is whether claimant is entitled to an award under Section 440.-13(1), Florida Statutes (1981) for services rendered by his sister-in-law which the employer/carrier claims are housekeeping services, but which the claimant contends are remedial in nature. The deputy commissioner found that the disputed services are necessary due to the physical injury and mental disability suffered by the claimant and that “the necessity for such was verified by the medical evidence.”
There is competent substantial evidence to support the Deputy Commissioner’s findings, and he properly applied the statutory provisions in this case. As this Court recognized in Khawam v. Collision Clinics Int., Inc., 413 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982):
It is the need for, rather than the nature of, the attendant services generated as a result of a compensable injury which determines whether those services are to be provided by the employer/carrier .... In the instant case, the deputy erred by examining the type of services requested, apparently without consideration of claimant’s needs.
Accord, Davis v. Stuart, 414 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). See Poinciana Chinaware, Inc. v. Forsythe, 136 So. 2d 337 (Fla.1961).
AFFIRMED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and WENTWORTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Abdullah Khawam v. Collision Clinics Int'l, Inc., 413 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Morgan v. State, 414 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Poinciana Chinaware, Inc. v. Lillian Forsythe & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 136 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1961)