TERRY LOOMIS, APPELLANT,
v.
BERNARD AND BERK INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC. AND CRAWFORD AND 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.
Terry Loomis appealed a workers' compensation order awarding him $100 per week for attendant care services following a work-related back injury. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the attendant care award as unsupported by evidence, remanded for reconsideration of housing and rehabilitation services, and remanded the attorney's fee issue for further determination under applicable statutory provisions.
The court reversed the $100 per week attendant care award as unsupported by evidence and remanded for an award consistent with the medical evidence showing a need for four hours daily at $10-$12 per hour ($280-$336 weekly minimum). The court reversed the denial of rehabilitation, housing, and equipment claims as premature and remanded for consideration after completion of the ordered housing and transportation evaluation. The court vacated the attorney's fee award and remanded for determination of entitlement under other applicable statutory provisions.
[1] An award of attendant care services must be supported by competent substantial evidence of the claimant's needs and the cost of such care.
[2] A worker's compensation order denying claims for rehabilitation services, specialized housing, and equipment is premature if the judge has ordered an evaluation of those…
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“The record before us reveals that the competent medical evidence indicates claimant requires at least four hours per day in attendant care services. There is no medical testimony to a lesser need. The record also indicates that in the Tampa Bay area this care costs from $10.00 to $12.00 per hour. At this rate, the minimum attendant care benefits to which claimant was entitled amounted to between $280 and $336 per week.”
Establishes the basis for reversing the $100 weekly award as unsupported by evidence and the proper range of benefits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTerry Loomis, an employee of Bernard and Berk Industrial Services, Inc., fell while working on a turbine generator on December 12, 1984, and underwent…
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 Rehabilitation Services cases and more on FLexlaw
ZEHMER, Judge.
This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a worker’s compensation order awarding claimant attendant care services in the amount of $100.00 per week, ordering an evaluation of his housing and transportation needs to be submitted within 60 days of the order,1 and awarding claimant’s attorney a reasonable attorney’s fee.
Claimant, Terry Loomis, an employee of Bernard and Berk Industrial Services, Inc., fell while working on a turbine generator on December 12, 1984. As a result, he underwent surgery to his lower back and, several years later, to the thoracic area. Permanent total disability was being paid at the time of the hearing. The employer and carrier paid for claimant’s attendant care for approximately one year at the rate of $175.00 per week.
Claimant first contends that the judge erred in denying his claim for live-in attendant care and awarding only $100 per week for such care. The record before us reveals that the competent medical evidence indicates claimant requires at least four hours per day in attendant care services. There is no medical testimony to a lesser need. The record also indicates that in the Tampa Bay area this care costs from $10.00 to $12.00 per hour. At this rate, the minimum attendant care benefits to which claimant was entitled amounted to between $280 and $336 per week. We reverse the award for $100 per week because it is not supported by any competent substantial evidence, and remand for reconsideration and entry of an award consistent with the evidence.
Claimant next argues that the denial of rehabilitation services and specialized housing and other equipment was error. The judge expressly ordered that the employer and carrier, “within 60 days of the date of the Order, submit an evaluation of the housing and transportation needs of the claimant.” In view of this directive, we conclude that the order denying these claims was entered prematurely because these issues were not ripe for adjudication. The appealed order cannot be treated as a final order as to these claims. Therefore, we reverse as to these claims and remand for further consideration thereof after the evaluation directed by the judge has been completed and presented at a further hearing.
The employer and carrier, on cross-appeal, argue that the judge erred in making any award of attendant care services until the claimant’s housing situation was resolved. For the reasons noted above showing a present need for attendant care, we find this issue without merit and affirm.
Cross-appellants also complain that this was a claim for medical benefits only and the award of attorney’s fees on that basis was error. Appellant concedes error and agrees that a fee is not due pursuant to section 440.34(3)(a), Florida Statutes, but urges that the cause should be remanded for a determination of the entitlement to and amount of a fee under other provisions of the statute. We agree that the award must be vacated and the attorney’s fee issue remanded for further consideration.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
ERVIN and NIMMONS, JJ., concur. . The order issued on January 18, 1989.