J. BYRONS AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
CYNTHIA GREEN, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 attendant care benefits cannot be awarded for purely household services and that the judge of compensation claims must make specific findings regarding average weekly wage calculation.
Appellants appealed an order awarding attendant care benefits and setting average weekly wage. Appellants argued the benefits were for household servi…
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 Attendant Care Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order awarding attendant care benefits and setting claimant’s average weekly wage. Appellants/cross-appellees contend that the judge of compensation claims erred in awarding attendant care benefits for purely household services. Claimant/cross-appellant contends that the JCC erred in calculating the average weekly wage based on part-time employment.
Section 440.13(2)(f), Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), states in pertinent part:
The employer shall provide appropriate professional or nonprofessional custodial care when the nature of the injury so requires and -is performed at the direction and control of a physician.
“Attendant or custodial care” means care usually rendered by trained professional attendants and beyond the scope of household duties.
The foregoing statute applies to the services rendered here and precludes recovery of attendant care benefits for ordinary household services. Mr. C’s T. V. Rental v. Murray, 559 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Therefore, we reverse the award of attendant care benefits.
With regard to the cross-appeal, although the record would support a determination of average weekly wage based on part-time employment, the JCC failed to make the necessary findings. Eaton v. Pinebrook Place Health Care, 506 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); see also Richardson v. Morrell’s, Inc., 570 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Therefore, we must reverse and remand for the requisite findings concerning part-time employment.
Accordingly the order is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
BOOTH, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montgomery Ward & Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Francoise Lovell, 652 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…s and beyond the scope of household duties. § 440.13(2)(f), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1990) (emphasis added). In 1992, this court applied the amended statute to preclude recovery of attendant care benefits for ordinary household services. J. Byrons v. Green, 602 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In reversing the JCC’s [*511] award of such benefits for purely household services, the J. Byrons court did not comment on the effect of the 1990 amendment. Nonetheless, we discern from the language contained in the amendment th…
Authorities Cited
- MR. C's TV Rental & Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Murray, 559 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Eaton v. Pinebrook Place Health Care Ctr. & Crawford & Co., 506 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Richardson v. Morrell's, Inc., 570 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)