FLORIDA MEDICAL CENTER AND SOUTHEAST FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
LISA RENZI, 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.
A Florida workers' compensation appellate court addressed whether an employer/carrier must reimburse for attendant care services rendered by family members before a formal request was made and for household services performed by parents. The court affirmed the award for post-hospitalization attendant care but reversed the reimbursement for household services while affirming the prospective $35/week award for future household assistance.
The court affirmed the $4,800 award for eight weeks of necessary attendant care beyond normal family services rendered following hospitalization. The court reversed the portion of the award reimbursing household services performed by the parents, as such services by family members living with the claimant are presumed gratuitous. The court affirmed the prospective $35/week award, which permits hiring someone to perform household duties the claimant cannot safely perform.
[1] An issue not raised before the deputy commissioner is not preserved for appellate review.
[2] An award for attendant care services rendered by a family member is permissible when the services are necessary and beyond those normally provided gratuitously.
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“We affirm the award for attendant care services for the eight-week period following claimant's discharge from the hospital since there is competent, substantial evidence that the services provided by claimant's parents were necessary and beyond those normally provided by family members gratuitously.”
Establishes the standard that attendant care by family members is compensable when services are necessary and exceed typical family care
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant Lisa Renzi received eight weeks of attendant care services from her parents beginning February 24, 1983, following her hospital discharge, an…
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 Worker'S Compensation Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from a workers’ compensation order awarding claimant, inter alia, $4,800 for eight weeks of attendant care rendered by her parents beginning February 24, 1983, plus interest thereon, and $35 per week beginning April 22, 1983, and continuing, for attendant care services. The employer/ carrier argue that the award of attendant care services rendered prior to a request for such services should be reversed.
However, the employer/carrier did not raise this issue before the deputy commissioner, and thus the question is not preserved for review. Don Harms Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Henderson, 454 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), Sunland Hospital v. Garrett, 415 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
We affirm the award for attendant care services for the eight-week period following claimant’s discharge from the hospital since there is competent, substantial evidence that the services provided by claimant’s parents were necessary and beyond those normally provided by family members gratuitously. Don Harris Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Henderson, supra. We must reverse that portion of the second award of attendant care services which the record shows is reimbursement for household services performed by claimant’s parents, since such services, when performed by a family member living with the claimant, are presumed to be gratuitous. Sheraton Bal Harbour v. Platis, 447 So. 2d 987, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
However, we affirm that part of the second award, prospective in nature, which requires the employer/carrier to pay claimant $35 per week, inasmuch as the award permits the claimant to hire someone to perform those household duties which competent, substantial evidence establishes claimant cannot perform without possible endangerment to her life.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
BOOTH, SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saunders Contracting & Cincinatti Ins. Co. v. Clemens, 492 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…from our review of the record that the e/e did not preserve the issues it now complains of, and, therefore, has waived such questions on appeal. Prestressed Systems v. Goff, 486 So. 2d 1378, 1380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Florida Medical Center v. Renzi, 464 So. 2d 231, 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Sunland Hospital v. Garrett, 415 So. 2d 783, 784-85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The record does not contain the arguments of counsel. The record is moreover silent as to why the motion to compel rehabilitation benefits was resist…
Authorities Cited
- Sunland Hospital/State OF Florida v. Garrett, 415 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- DON Harris Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Henderson, 454 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Sheraton BAL Harbour & Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Platis, 447 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)