VIVIAN FAVORS, APPELLANT,
v.
WALGREEN COMPANY AND TRAVELERS 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.
Vivian Favors appealed a workers' compensation order denying her claim for full-time attendant care, retroactive benefits, attorney's fees, and costs. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that uncontroverted evidence established she needed at least four hours of daily attendant care since August 1988, and that the employer and carrier had a duty to investigate and provide such benefits once they authorized her wheelchair.
The court held that uncontroverted evidence established the claimant needed at least four hours of daily attendant care since August 1988, that the employer and carrier had a duty to properly investigate after authorizing the wheelchair, and that the claimant is entitled to retroactive attendant care benefits, future attendant care benefits of no less than four hours per day, and attorney's fees and costs.
[1] A judge of compensation claims's finding regarding the amount of future attendant care benefits must be supported by the record, and cannot be less than the uncontroverte…
[2] Notice of a claimant's need for a wheelchair, authorized by a physician, obligates the employer and carrier to diligently investigate the claimant's need for attendant ca…
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 does not support the judge of compensation claims's finding that claimant was entitled to future attendant care benefits in the amount of only two hours per day. The uncontroverted evidence established that claimant has been required to use a wheelchair since August 1988 and that she needs at least four hours' attendant care per day.”
Establishes that the lower court's finding lacked evidentiary support and the claimant's actual needs exceeded what was awarded.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVivian Favors has been wheelchair-bound since August 1988 and requires at least four hours of daily attendant care. The carrier authorized a wheelchai…
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.
Vivian Favors, claimant, appeals from a final workers’ compensation order denying her claim for full-time attendant care, payment for retroactive attendant care, attorney’s fees, and costs. We reverse for the following reasons.
The record does not support the judge of compensation claims’s finding that claimant was entitled to future attendant care benefits in the amount of only two hours per day. The uncontroverted evidence established that claimant has been required to use a wheelchair since August 1988 and that she needs at least four hours’ attendant care per day. The record also fails to support the judge’s finding that there was no evidence that employer and carrier should have known to provide attendant care to claimant prior to her filing a claim for such benefits. The record shows that the carrier authorized the wheelchair pursuant to claimant’s authorized physician’s prescription for her in August 1988. This notice gave rise to an obligation on the part of employer and carrier to properly and diligently investigate the facts to determine whether claimant was wheelchair bound and needed any form of attendant care. Cf. Walt Disney World v. Harrison, 443 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Since the uncontroverted evidence shows that claimant has needed a wheelchair since August 22, 1988, and that she needs attendant care for at least four hours per day, we reverse with directions that the judge of compensation claims order employer and carrier to pay claimant retroactive attendant care benefits and provide future attendant care benefits. The amount of future care to be authorized shall be redetermined by the judge, but in no event shall it be less than four hours per day.
The denial of attorney’s fees and costs to claimant is reversed, as she is entitled to such fees and costs under section 440.34(3) and 440.34(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1987).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SHIVERS, C.J., and JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. DRW Realty Servs. & Aetna Life & Cas., 569 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…nces, the employer/carrier concedes that it performed no investigation to determine if attendant care was necessary. Smith’s [*464] failure to request the care is irrelevant if the nature of the injury requires such benefits, Favors v. Walgreen Co., 557 So. 2d 951, 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), and there is no evidence to support the judge’s finding that the employer/earrier was prejudiced by this lack of notice. See Kraft Dairy Group v. Sorge, 509 So. 2d 1156, 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Based on the foregoing aut…
-
Doctors Hosp. & Cont'l Loss Adjusting Servs. v. Billings, 591 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ifficulty concluding that claimant’s condition during the three weeks after back surgery, including her confinement to a neck and back brace, was such as to put appellants on notice, of claimant’s need for attendant care. Favors v. Walgreen Company, 557 So. 2d 951, 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (carrier’s authorization of [*660] use of a wheelchair put carrier on notice of claimant’s possible need for attendant care). The record amply supports the JCC’s finding that appellants either knew or should have known of cl…
-
Bass v. IMC Fertilizer & United States Fire Ins., 655 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…of the need for attendant care. See Ogden Allied Services v. Bryant, 647 So. 2d 195, 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (wheelchair prescription gave rise to an obligation on part of E/C to investigate possible need for attendant care); Favors v. Walgreen Co., 557 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (same); see also Smith v. DRW Realty Services, 569 So. 2d 462, 463 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (neither worker’s failure to request attendant care nor absence of medical recommendation for such care warrants denial where worker had actua…
Authorities Cited
- Walt Disney World Co. v. Harrison, 443 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)