MR. C'S TV RENTAL AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE, APPELLANTS,
v.
DAVID MURRAY, 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 court reversed an order awarding 24-hour-per-day attendant care benefits paid to the claimant's wife under workers' compensation law. A 1989 statutory amendment limiting family member attendant care compensation to 12 hours per day applied to benefits awarded before the amendment's effective date but paid thereafter, requiring remand for recalculation.
The 1989 amendment applies to attendant care benefits awarded pursuant to the pre-amendment order where services are both rendered and paid for after the amendment's effective date. The amendment limits the hours for which the wife may be compensated but does not affect the claimant's substantive right to receive necessary attendant care. The order is reversed and remanded for recalculation consistent with the 12-hour-per-day limitation.
[1] A statutory amendment limiting the number of hours for which a family member providing attendant care may be compensated applies to benefits awarded prior to the amendmen…
[2] A family member providing nonprofessional attendant or custodial care is not to be compensated for more than 12 hours per day.
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“In no event shall a family member providing nonprofessional attendant or custodial care pursuant to this paragraph be compensated for more than 12 hours per day.”
States the 12-hour-per-day limitation imposed by the 1989 amendment to Section 440.13(2)(e)2
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant was injured and required attendant care. The claimant's wife, who was employed, left her employment to provide the attendant care. The ju…
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 Statutory Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
BOOTH, Judge.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order awarding claimant 24-hour-per-day attendant care benefits to be paid for care provided by claimant’s wife. We reverse based on Section 440.13(2)(e)2, Florida Statutes (1989). Section 440.13(2)(e)2 provides:
440.13 Medical services and supplies; penalty for violations; limitations.—
(2)(e) The value of nonprofessional attendant or custodial care provided by a family member shall be determined as follows:
2. If the family member is employed and elects to leave that employment to provide attendant or custodial care, the per hour value of that care shall be at the per hour value of such family member’s former employment, not to exceed the per hour value of such care available in the community at large. In no event shall a family member providing nonprofessional attendant or custodial care pursuant to this paragraph be compensated for more than 12 hours per day. [emphasis added to identify 1989 amendment].
The 1989 amendment, which limits compensation of family members providing nonprofessional attendant or custodial care to not more than 12 hours per day, became effective October 1,1989, after the entry of the order (July 3, 1989) in this case. Ch. 89-289, §§ 10 and 45, Laws of Fla. In Williams v. Amax Chemical Corporation, 543 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), this court applied the earlier 1988 amendment of Section 440.13(2)(e)2, Florida Statutes, to benefits awarded prior to, but paid after, the effective date of the amendment, holding:
After October 1, 1988, payment for the wife’s services must be governed by section 440.13(2)(e), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988). She may wish to quit her job and receive her present hourly wage to the extent that it does not exceed “the per hour value of such care available in the community at large.”
Neither the 1988 nor the 1989 amendment affect claimant’s substantive rights. The 1989 amendment limits the number of hours of care for which claimant’s wife may be paid but does not affect or in any way limit claimant’s right to receive 24-hour-per-day attendant or custodial care shown to be required. Therefore, we hold the amendment applies to attendant care benefits awarded pursuant to the pream-endment order where services are both rendered and paid for after the amendment’s effective date. Accordingly, the judge of compensation claims’ order is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
THOMPSON and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
ACE Disposal & Fla. Air Condition Contractors v. Holley, 668 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…So. 2d at 261 (Where amendment did not impact claimant’s entitlement to witnesses’ testimony or alter source of payment for witnesses’ fees, it did not diminish claimant’s substantive rights and applied retroactively.); Mr. C’s TV Rental v. Murray, 559 So. 2d 452, 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (Amendment limiting family members to 12 hours of attendant care per day applied retroactively because it did not affect or limit a claimant’s right to receive 24 hours of attendant care per day.). In this case, the amended…
-
Gustav Thorarinsson v. Robert F. Wilson, Inc., 563 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…3(2)(e)2, applied to benefits awarded prior to, but paid after, the effective date of the amendment. Williams v. Amax Chemical Corp., 543 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Further, this court in Mr. C’s TV Rental and Liberty Mut. Ins. v. David Murray, 559 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), held that neither the 1988 nor the 1989 amendment affect a claimant’s substantive rights. Therefore, the 1989 amendment applies to attendant care benefits awarded pursuant to the preamendment order but rendered and paid after th…
-
Paulk v. Sch. Bd. OF Palm Beach Cnty. & Dep't of Risk Mgmt., 615 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…entitlement to a service is not diminished, a limitation on the amount paid for the service does not impact a substantive right and may apply to services rendered after the effective date of the statutory limitation. See Mr. C’s TV Rental v. Murray, 559 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); accord, Williams v. Amax Chem. Corp., 543 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Section 440.13(2)(k), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), imposes a $200 limit on the witness fee of a health care provider who renders direct professional ser…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cameo Hotel & Apts., Ltd. v. Rhoda Morris and Audrey Lewis, 543 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Williams v. Amax Chem. Corp. & Underwriters Adjusting Co., 543 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)