C.J. LANGENFELDER AND MARYLAND CASUALTY, APPELLANTS,
v.
MAUREEN REGINA, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed an award of permanent total disability (PTD) benefits to an injured worker but reversed an award of attendant care benefits for household services, finding insufficient medical evidence that such services were medically necessary beyond those family members normally provide.
The court affirmed the award of PTD benefits from March 6, 1990, finding competent, substantial evidence in the record. The court reversed the award of attendant care benefits for lack of competent, substantial evidence that such services were medically necessary beyond those family members normally provide gratuitously. The court found it unnecessary to address the TTD award because it fell within the period covered by the PTD award after MMI.
[1] An award of temporary total disability benefits is rendered moot by a subsequent award of permanent total disability benefits covering the same period.
[2] An award of permanent total disability benefits may be supported by competent, substantial evidence even in the absence of a good faith work search, if the record otherwi…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We view the critical issues to be whether the record contains competent, substantial evidence to support the findings made on each of the contested benefits.”
Establishes the standard of review the court applies to all three contested benefit awards.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaureen Regina, a workers' compensation claimant, sought TTD benefits, PTD benefits, attendant care benefits, and costs. The claimant had reached maxi…
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 Good Faith Work Search cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
C.J. Langenfelder (employer) and Maryland Casualty (carrier) appeal a workers’ compensation order requiring them to pay Maureen Regina (claimant) temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, permanent total disability (PTD) benefits, attendant care benefits, and costs. Appellants raise three issues on this appeal. First, they contend it was error to award TTD benefits after claimant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI). Second, they contend it was error to award PTD benefits in the absence of medical evidence that claimant was totally unable to work, because claimant had not conducted a good faith work search. Third, they contend it was error to award attendant care benefits for the performance of household services. We view the critical issues to be whether the record contains competent, substantial evidence to support the findings made on each of the contested benefits.
Addressing the second issue first, we conclude that the record contains competent, substantial evidence to support the award of PTD benefits from March 6,1990. We do so without further discussion, perceiving no useful precedential value to be served by a lengthy presentation of the factual circumstances unique to this case.
In view of our affirmance of the PTD award, it is unnecessary to address the award of TTD benefits, as the period of that award fell within the period covered by the PTD award after claimant had reached MMI.
We reverse the award of attendant care benefits for lack of competent, substantial evidence that such benefits are medically necessary. Neither physician on whose testimony this award was apparently based opined that the housekeeping services claimed to have been performed by claimant’s husband (who also was suffering from a serious back condition and receiving workers’ compensation benefits for such condition) were medically required by claimant’s physical condition beyond these services that family members normally provide gratuitously. § 440.13(2)(d), Fla.Stat. (1987). See Sealy Mattress Co. v. Gause, 466 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Moreover, the record does not contain competent, substantial evidence establishing the quantity, quality, and duration of the attendant care services that claimant contends her husband performed or that should be performed in the future by an outside attendant. See Barkett Computer Services v. Santana, 568 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Perez v. Pennsuco Cement & Aggregates, 504 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.
SMITH, ZEHMER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson Manor Nursing Home & Fireman's Fund Ins. v. Ortiz, 606 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…ion); Merritt Seawall v. Revels, 594 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA1992) (attendant care warranted by specific evidence that as a result of his injuries, claimant presents a danger to himself and should not be left alone). In C.J. Langenfelder v. Regina, 601 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA1992), we reversed an attendant care award, noting: We reverse the award of attendant care benefits for lack of competent, substantial evidence that such benefits are medically necessary. Neither physician on whose testimony this award…1 / 2
-
Soverel Harbour, Inc. v. Roberts, 634 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…killed attendant care during the periods in question. See Walt Disney World Co. v. Harrison, 443 So. 2d 389, 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Allied [*300] Discount Tires v. Cook, 587 So. 2d 626, 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); see also C.J. Lagenfelder v. Regina, 601 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Doctors Goodman, Udehn, and Tuch-man all recommended in varying degrees that claimant have some type of assistance for the month following the accident. Dr. Udehn farther testified that- such assistance should have been extended…
Authorities Cited
- Sealey Mattress Co. & Hartford Ins. Co. v. Gause, 466 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Perez v. Pennsuco Cement & Aggregates & Ins. Co. of N. Am., 504 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Barkett Computer Serv. & Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Santana, 568 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)