FRANKLIN COPELAND, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN L.A. BOND AND LIBERTY MUTUAL BOND INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
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.
In a workers' compensation appeal, the court reversed the denial of a claim for attendant care, holding that when an injured worker requires assistance with medical treatment due to the combined effect of both a compensable industrial injury and a non-compensable condition, the employer must provide the necessary attendant care under Florida law.
Yes. Attendant care must be awarded when the need for such care arises from the combined effect of industrial and non-industrial conditions, and the care would not be required but for the existence of the compensable industrial injury.
[1] Medical care is properly awarded under workers' compensation statutes when the need for such care arises from the combined effect of industrial and nonindustrial conditio…
[2] An employer is responsible for treatment required by a non-compensable injury if such treatment would not presently be required but for the existence of a compensable inj…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“medical care is properly awarded pursuant to section 440.13(2)(a) when the need for such care arises from the combined effect of industrial and nonindustrial conditions”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for attendant care eligibility when multiple causative factors exist
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant sustained severe industrial injuries to his shoulder and back resulting in permanent total disability. He subsequently underwent unrelated su…
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 Industrial Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
[*459] WENTWORTH, Judge.
Claimant seeks review of a workers' compensation order by which a claim for attendant care was denied. We find that the requested care was necessitated by claimant’s industrial injury and thus should have been awarded pursuant to section 440.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes. We therefore reverse the order appealed.
Claimant experienced industrial accidents which resulted in severe injuries to his shoulder and back, and was accepted as permanently totally disabled. Due to an unrelated diabetic condition a portion of one foot was subsequently amputated, and claimant also underwent rectal surgery. To facilitate his recovery from these procedures claimant’s medical recommendations were to immerse his foot periodically in a basin of water and occasionally soak in a bathtub. Although he could perform these activities without help absent his residual restrictions from the industrial injuries, claimant now finds it necessary to obtain assistance to carry out the necessary therapy. He also requires help in putting medication, bandages, and a sock on his foot. The physician who treated claimant for his industrial injuries recommended that he avoid overhead reaching and stooping or bending at the waist, and indicated that these restrictions would make it difficult for claimant to care for his foot condition without assistance.
Section 440.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes, directs the employer of a claimant who sustains an industrial injury to furnish such medical attendance as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery requires. In the present case the deputy declined to award such care, reasoning that claimant’s need was necessitated by the nonindustrial surgeries. However, medical care is properly awarded pursuant to section 440.-13(2)(a) when the need for such care arises from the combined effect of industrial and nonindustrial conditions. See Jordan v. Florida Industrial Commission, 183 So. 2d 529 (Fla.1966); Glades County Sugar Growers v. Gonzales, 388 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). As Gonzales indicates, the employer is responsible for “treatment required by the non-compensable injury if such treatment would not presently be required but for the existence of the compensable injury.”
In the present case the care which claimant requested would not be required but for the existence of his compensable injuries. While the ultimate purpose of such care is to facilitate claimant’s recovery from the nonindustrial surgeries, it is the industrial injuries which are producing the need for assistance in administering such care. The claim should therefore have been awarded in accordance with Jordan and Gonzales, supra, as attendant care authorized by section 440.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes.
The order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for the entry of an order consistent herewith.
ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cathaleen Myers v. Sherwin-Williams Paint, 838 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…care arises from the combined effect of industrial and nonindustrial conditions. See Jordan v. Florida Industrial Commission, 183 So. 2d 529 (Fla.1966); Glades County Sugar Growers v. Gonzales, 388 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).” Copeland v. Bond, 528 So. 2d 458, 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). “As Gonzales indicates, the employer is responsible for ‘treatment required by the non-compensable injury if such treatment would not presently be required but for the existence of the compen-sable injury.’ ” Id. See Newhou…
-
C & J Delivery & U.S. Ins. Grp. v. Donel Garcia, 560 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…Construction Company v. Golden, 190 So. 2d 323 (Fla.1966). State, Department of Public Health, Division of Risk Management v. Wilcox, 458 So. 2d 1207, 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Controlling in this case is this court’s decision in Copeland v. Bond, 528 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). In Copeland, the claimant had experienced industrial accidents which resulted in severe injuries to his shoulder and back, and was accepted as permanently and totally disabled. The restrictions placed on claimant because of his…1 / 2
-
Robbin Tyson v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Bd. & F.A. Richard & Assocs., 913 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…efits because “[cjlaimant’s psychiatric disability which required attendant care did not result solely from the [non-compensable] condition,” where “the attendant care ... was necessitated by claimant’s industrial injury”) (quoting Copeland v. Bond, 528 So. 2d 458, 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (reversing denial of attendant care benefits where “the care which claimant requested would not be required but for the existence of his com-pensable injuries”)). To the extent increased attendant care is required after the…
Authorities Cited
- Glades Cnty. Sugar Growers & Emp'rs Ins. of Wausau v. Gonzales, 388 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Jordan v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 183 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1966)