GUSTAV THORARINSSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT F. WILSON, INC., AND MICHIGAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 1990-04-18
No. 89-1183
BOOTH and MINER, JJ., concur.
563 So. 2d 710 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1990) Negative Treatment
Cited by 22 cases


Opinion of the Court
THOMPSON, Judge.

THOMPSON, Judge.

This case involves the appeal and cross-appeal of a workers’ compensation order awarding attendant care. We affirm the order except as to the award of attendant care.

The Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) below held that § 440.13(2)(e)2, Fla.Stat. (1988), should not be retroactively applied. This court has previously held that the 1988 amendment of § 440.13(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 the amendment’s effective date.

Accordingly, the JCC’s award of attendant care benefits is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

BOOTH and MINER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (21 total)

  • Travelers Ins. Co. v. Quirk, 583 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1991)
    …BARKETT, Justice. We review Quirk v. Anthony, 563 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), based on asserted conflict with Gast v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 516 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); and Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Koven, 402 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).1 James H. Quirk was a passen…
  • The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Warren, 678 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1996)
    …pay for UM coverage under the named insureds’ policy. Rather, class II insureds are essentially third party beneficiaries to the named insureds' policy. See Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229, 238 (Fla.1971); Quirk v. Anthony, 563 So. 2d 710, 713 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), approved, 583 So. 2d 1026 (Fla.1991). . The Second District Court of Appeal has previously concluded that neither the 1983 nor the 1984 version of section 627.727 required insurers to stack UM coverage on top of liabil…
  • Adams v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 574 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
    …nt of Aetna rather than Mr. Adams concerning Aetna’s statutory obligation to obtain a proper rejection of statutorily-required UM/UIM coverage, and Aetna will be treated as bound by Bacon’s knowledge and conduct in that regard. See Quirk v. Anthony, 563 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). The record contains evidence tending to establish, with some dispute, the circumstances under which Mr. Adams obtained the initial issuance and delivery of the two liability insurance policies and the nature and sufficiency of A…
    1 / 3

Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw