APPLEGATE DRYWALL COMPANY AND MARYLAND CASUALTY CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
CHARLES A. PATRICK, 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 held that the employer/carrier remains responsible for the insurance, maintenance, and repair costs of a wheelchair van awarded as a medical benefit.
A claimant sustained injuries rendering him paraplegic and was awarded workers' compensation benefits, including a wheelchair van. The employer/carrie…
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 Workers' Compensation Medical Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Employer/carrier appeal a workers’ compensation order by which the paraplegic claimant was awarded various benefits, including a wheelchair van for which employer/carrier was held responsible for insurance, maintenance, and repair costs. We find that no point of reversible error has been presented for our review, and we therefore affirm the appealed order. Claimant sustained industrial injuries which rendered him paraplegic, and certain workers’ compensation benefits were provided. A claim was thereafter made for other benefits including a wheelchair van. Employer/carrier subsequently agreed to furnish such a van, but desired that it be titled in claimant’s name. After a hearing the judge approved this arrangement, but ordered that employer/carrier remain responsible for “all insurance payments as well as all maintenance and repair” for the vehicle.
Since a wheelchair van is awardable as a medical benefit under section 440.13(2), Florida Statutes, upon an appropriate showing of need, see generally, Aino’s Custom Slip Covers v. DeLucia, 533 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), the necessary costs attending the use of this medical benefit are also awardable. Cf., Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Vaughn, 381 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The circumstance that employer/carrier has chosen to title the vehicle in claimant’s name does not alter this obligation, nor is any further showing required beyond that which supports the award of the van. And, as indicated in Vaughn, chapter 440 does not provide for apportionment of such necessary costs of medical apparatus. In the circumstances presented the judge properly required employer/carrier to remain responsible for the challenged insurance, maintenance, and repair costs.
The order appealed is affirmed.
ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Polk Cnty. Bd. OF Comm'rs & Home Ins. Co. v. Emmett F. Varnado, 576 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…s been determined to be medically necessary, an E/C may be required to provide for insurance and major maintenance for the facility to assure its continued availability. See Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., supra, and Applegate Drywall Co. v. Patrick, 559 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The law does not require the E/C to be responsible for all expenses of operation, although costs uniquely attributable to the provision of a facility or service which is necessitated by an accident and found to be medically nece…
-
S. Indus. v. Chumney, 613 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In the present case, however, in light of claimant’s quadriplegia, we find the provision of a specially equipped vehicle to be a nonapportionable medically necessary benefit. See Applegate Drywall Company v. Patrick, 559 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Accordingly, the cost of insurance for claimant’s specially equipped van and maintenance expenses for the van are likewise nonappor-tionable. Therefore, we affirm the JCC’s order as it pertains to the van’s insurance and mainten…
-
Temps & Co. Servs. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cremeens, 597 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…is a medical expense or apparatus, and relied on the line of decisions holding that a medical expense or apparatus is not apportionable. See, e.g., Skinner v. Florida Power Corp., 580 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Applegate Drywall Co. v. Patrick, 559 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We agree with the e/c that the decisional law does not support the JCC’s award of the entire purchase price of the replacement vehicle. At the time of the accident, claimant already owned an automobile. As a result of her injur…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vaughn, 381 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)