SAMUEL SINK, APPELLANT,
v.
BOB BELL ROOFING, INC. AND FLORIDA HOME BUILDERS SELF INSURERS FUND, APPELLEES
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.
Appellate court affirmed the 12-week duration of attendant-care benefits but reversed the award of minimum wage reimbursement, holding that pre-October 1988 attendant care must be reimbursed at market rate rather than statutory minimum wage.
Attendant-care benefits for services rendered prior to October 1, 1988 must be reimbursed at the market rate in the community, not at minimum wage.
[1] Attendant-care benefits for services rendered prior to October 1, 1988 must be reimbursed at the market rate in the community rather than at statutory minimum wage.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“a family member providing custodial care to an injured worker was entitled to reimbursement at the market rate in the community where the claimant lived”
Court citing pre-1988 case law establishing the applicable standard for attendant-care reimbursement prior to the statutory amendment
Samuel Sink, an injured worker, received an award of attendant-care benefits limited to 12 weeks at 12 hours per day at minimum wage from a judge of c…
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 Custodial Care cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant/claimant, Samuel Sink, appeals from a final order of compensation awarding attendant-care benefits. The claimant raises two points on appeal: (1) Whether the judge of compensation claims (JCC) erred in limiting the award of attendant-care benefits to 12 weeks at 12 hours per day; and (2) whether the judge of compensation claims erred in awarding attendant-care benefits at minimum wage rather than market rate.
We affirm as to issue I without comment, but reverse in regard to issue II.
We find that the JCC’s award of attendant-care benefits “at the minimum wage in accordance with F.S. 440.13(2)(e)” was erroneous. The 12-week period for which benefits were awarded occurred prior to October 1,1988, the effective date of the statute relied upon by the JCC. Prior to the 1988 amendment to section 440.13(2), Florida Statutes, case law held that a family member providing custodial care to an injured worker was entitled to reimbursement at the market rate in the community where the claimant lived. See, e.g., Southland Corp. v. Anaya, 513 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
In the instant case, the JCC did not address a finding of market rate for such services. For that reason, we vacate the rate awarded for attendant care and remand for further proceedings to determine the appropriate reimbursement for attendant care.
ERVIN, WIGGINTON and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Southland Corp. & Am. Motorist Ins. Co. v. Yrina Anaya, 513 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)