CITY OF NORTH MIAMI, APPELLANT,
v.
ARTHUR TOWERS, 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 while attendant care benefits are compensable, a family member providing such care cannot be compensated for more than 12 hours per day under the amended statute.
The employer/carrier appealed an order awarding 24-hour attendant care benefits to a claimant, provided by his wife, and challenged the valuation of t…
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.
PER CURIAM.
The employer/carrier (E/C) appeals an order awarding the claimant 24-hour-per-day attendant care benefits for care provided by the claimant’s wife. The E/C also appeals the judge of compensation claims valuation of those services at the market rate charged by the home health care agency rather than the rate charged by the individual health care employee.
There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the JCC’s order awarding attendant care benefits valued at the rate charged by the health care agency pursuant to Section 440.13(2)(e)2, Florida Statutes (1989).
However, the JCC erred in awarding those benefits on a 24-hour-per-day basis. Section 440.13(2)(e)2, amended effective October 1, 1989, states in pertinent part:
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.
This court held in Mr. C’s TV Rental v. Murray, 559 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), that the amendment does not affect a claimant’s substantive rights, nor limit the claimant’s right to receive 24-hour-per-day attendant care which may be required. The amendment simply limits the number of hours of care for which the claimant’s wife may be paid.
Therefore, we reverse the JCC’s order insofar as it requires the claimant’s wife be paid for 24 hours of attendant care after October 1, 1989, the effective date of Section 440.13(2)(e)2, Florida Statutes (1989). With respect to all other issues, we affirm.
BOOTH, MINER and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Collura v. Multi Line CAN Co. & Hartford Ins. Co., 598 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…ant care. The statute imposes no limit on claimant’s right to receive 24-hour-per-day attendant care should such be required. The statute merely limits the number of hours of care for which claimant’s wife may be paid. City of North Miami v. Towers, 584 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Firestone Tire and Rubber v. Knowles, 561 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Mr. C’s TV Rental v. Murray, 559 So. 2d 452, 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The order appealed from is reversed to the extent indicated herein, and this cause…
-
S. Bell Tel., Inc. v. Cordell, 693 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…First District’s affirmance thereof, specifically denied Claimant her claim for the other twelve hours of attendant care provided by her husband, on the basis of the limitations contained in § 440.13(2)(h)2. See also, City of North Miami v. Towers, 584 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Firestone Tire & Rubber v. Knowles, 561 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Mr. C’s TV Rental v. Mun’ay, 559 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The Circuit Court apparently based its order on paragraph 4(b) of the decretal section of…
Authorities Cited
- MR. C's TV Rental & Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Murray, 559 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)