BUILDERS SQUARE AND KM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT DRAKE, 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 First District Court of Appeal affirmed a workers' compensation award granting a paraplegic claimant 24-hour-per-day attendant care benefits and catastrophic loss benefits following an industrial back injury requiring spinal surgery that severed his spinal cord. The court held that competent evidence supported both the causal nexus between the industrial accident and the paraplegia and the necessity for round-the-clock attendant care.
The court affirmed the award of 24-hour-per-day attendant care and catastrophic loss benefits. The court held that claimant's testimony, family testimony, and physician testimony provided sufficient evidence that constant assistance was medically necessary. The court also held that supplemental nursing assistance provided by the employer was not a substitute for the daughter's attendant care services, so the daughter remained entitled to compensation even during periods when employer-provided assistance was available.
[1] Competent and substantial evidence supports a finding of a causal relationship between an industrial accident and a claimant's subsequent paraplegia.
[2] An award of 24-hour attendant care is proper when a claimant requires constant assistance with personal hygiene, medication, and mobility, both day and night.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 find competent, substantial evidence to support the judge's finding of a causal relationship between claimant's industrial accident and his subsequent paraplegia.”
Establishes the court's standard for reviewing causation findings and confirms sufficient evidence supported the link between injury and paraplegia.
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 a compensable lower back injury that required two surgical procedures on his spine. During the second surgery, claimant's spinal co…
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 Catastrophic Loss Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
The employer/carrier seek review of a workers’ compensation order awarding claimant medical benefits, catastrophic loss benefits and attendant care for 24 hours per day. We find no error on appeal and affirm the order.1
Claimant sustained a compensable injury to his lower back which eventually required surgical treatment. Claimant underwent two surgical procedures on his spine, and in the course of his second surgery, his spinal cord had to be severed. As a result, claimant was rendered a paraplegic, and subsequently required both skilled and unskilled help in attending to most of the aspects of his life. We find competent,substantial evidence to support the judge’s finding of a causal relationship between claimant’s industrial accident and his subsequent paraplegia.
The judge awarded around-the-clock attendant care to claimant in order to provide him with assistance in his daily life. We find the testimony of claimant, his family, and his physicians sufficient to support this award. The evidence demonstrated that although the 69-year-old claimant had the use of his upper extremities, he required constant assistance in attending to his personal hygiene, obtaining medication, and moving from his bed to his wheelchair or to the bathroom during the day and at night. According to his physician, claimant needed to have someone on call and available at all times to assist him or to clean up after him when the need arose. Thus, the award of attendant care 24 hours per day was proper. See City of North Miami v. Towers, 557 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). See also Standard Blasting & Coating v. Hayman, 476 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), where this court noted that it is proper to award attendant care for the hours when a spouse is required to be on call and available to attend to the claimant’s needs even if the spouse is engaged in otherwise non-compensable activities at home.
In addition, although the employer/ carrier provided a nurse and an aide for short periods occasionally during the week to take care of claimant’s bedsores and to provide assistance in bathing claimant, his daughter remained in attendance at those times in order to assist and to learn new skills to help her father. Under these circumstances such supplemental assistance was not a substitute for the daughter’s services. The judge was therefore correct in awarding claimant the value of his daughter’s attendant care even during those times when the employer/carrier provided claimant with supplemental assistance. Cf. Aino’s Custom Slip Covers v. DeLucia, 533 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (During those times when the aide provided by the employer/carrier was intended to substitute for the claimant’s wife while she took time off for herself, no attendant care benefits were to be paid to the wife.)
Because we find no error, the order on appeal is affirmed.
ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur. . Claimant died at some point subsequent to rendition of the order on appeal. Therefore, claimant’s right to benefits subsequent to the date of his death, including any modifications to claimant’s home which had not been accomplished by the date of his death, would appear to be mooted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Caron v. Systematic AIR Servs. & State Farm Ins., 576 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…that “on call” attendant care provided by a family member is not subject to reduction merely because the family member is involved in other household activities while simultaneously monitoring the activities of a claimant. Builders Square v. Drake, 557 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Williams v. Amax Chem. Corp., 543 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Amador v. Parts Depot, Inc., 508 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); and Standard Blasting & Coating v. Hayman, 476 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 4…
-
Parave v. TRI Cnty. Sec., Inc., 737 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…ation to be paid in this case for twenty-four hour a day “on call” or “surveillance” attendant care provided by claimant’s fiancee, where the judge of compensation claims has found that claimant is in need of such care. See Builders Square v. Drake, 557 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); King Lumber Co. v. Bloomfield, 560 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Collura v. Multi Line Can Company, 598 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).…
-
King Lumber Co. & Feisco v. Renford Bloomfield, 560 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…and sufficient to support the award of such care for 12 hours per day through September 11, 1987, and for 24 hours per day from that point forward. See City of North Miami v. Towers, 557 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), and Builders Square v. Drake, 557 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). This court’s opinions in Mr. C’s TV Rental v. Murray, 559 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), and Williams v. Amax Chemical Corp., 543 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), indicate that the 1989 amendment to section 440.13(2)(e)2 (the…
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
- Aino's Custom Slip Covers & Nationwide Ins. Co. v. DeLUCIA, 533 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Standard Blasting & Coating & Claims Ctr. v. Hayman, 476 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- State v. Exum Walker, 557 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)