STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION/DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT, APPELLANT,
v.
VINCENT HOLLOWAY, 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 affirmed the award of attendant care but reversed the award of permanent impairment benefits.
An employer/carrier challenged an award of around-the-clock attendant care and permanent impairment benefits to a brain-damaged claimant. The claimant…
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 Permanent Impairment Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal of a workers’ compensation order, the employer/carrier (e/c) challenge an award of around-the-clock attendant care to a brain-damaged claimant. The claimant’s cross-appeal asserts that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) set an inadequate rate to compensate claimant’s wife for providing attendant care. Because we find the JCC’s attendant care award is supported by competent substantial evidence, we affirm without further elaboration.
E/c also challenge the award of permanent impairment benefits for claimant’s loss of vision in his right eye.1 Because the record reveals that claimant had been deemed permanently totally disabled and was receiving permanent total disability benefits, an additional award of permanent impairment benefits was improper. See Escambia County Council on Aging v. Goldsmith, 500 So. 2d 626, 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Accordingly, the award of attendant care is affirmed, and the award of permanent impairment benefits is reversed.
MINER and ALLEN, JJ., and CAWTHON, VICTOR, (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur. . Section 440.15(3)(a)l, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986), provides that permanent impairment benefits are obtainable "[i]n case of permanent impairment due to ... loss of 80 percent or more of vision of either eye, after correction ... resulting from an injury other than an injury entitling the injured worker to permanent total disability benefits_”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brannon v. Tampa Tribune & Kemper Risk Mgmt. Servs., 711 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…, 150 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1963). The Florida courts continued to apply this rule after the legislature changed the classification of benefits from permanent partial disability to permanent impairment. See State, Department of Transportation v. Holloway, 573 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Brownell, supra. Likewise, courts in other states have determined that an injured worker is not entitled to simultaneous awards for permanent partial disability and permanent total disability for the same injury. See Boquist v.…
Authorities Cited
- Escambia Cnty. Council ON Aging & Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Goldsmith, 500 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)