KENDALL ASSOCIATES AND CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
AMPARO ALVAREZ, 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.
This case involves an appeal concerning the modification of an attendant care award for a claimant receiving permanent total disability benefits. The employer and carrier (E/C) sought to modify the award based on a statutory change limiting compensation for family members providing care and the claimant's divorce from his wife, who was providing care. The appellate court affirmed the claimant's entitlement to 24-hour attendant care but remanded the case to ensure the E/C receive credit for payments already made.
The appellate court held that the employer and carrier are entitled to credit for attendant care benefits they have paid under the original compensation order. The court affirmed the claimant's entitlement to 24 hours of attendant care but remanded for amendment of the modification order to reflect the E/C's entitlement to a setoff.
[1] A judge of compensation claims may modify an attendant care award based on statutory amendments and changes in a claimant's marital status.
[2] When modifying an attendant care award, a judge of compensation claims must provide for credit or setoff for payments previously made under a prior compensation order.
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“Accordingly, the attendant care provisions in the order appealed from are affirmed. The denial of rehearing is reversed, and this cause is remanded so that the modification order may be amended to provide that the E/C receive credit or entitlement to a setoff for attendant care benefits they have paid under the original compensation order.”
This quote summarizes the court's decision to affirm the claimant's ongoing attendant care benefits while reversing the denial of rehearing to allow for a credit to the E/C for prior payments.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant was awarded 24-hour attendant care benefits. The employer and carrier (E/C) sought to modify this award due to a statute limiting compens…
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 Credit For Payments Made cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) modifying an award of attendant care. By compensation order of September 1988, claimant was awarded permanent total disability (PTD) benefits and 24-hour-per-day attendant care benefits, to be provided by claimant’s wife, by a professional provider of unskilled attendant care, and by a rehabilitation center. Subsequently, the employer and carrier (E/C) filed petitions for modification of the attendant care award on the basis of section 440.13(2)(e)2, Florida Statutes (1989), under which family members providing attendant care may not be compensated for more than 12 hours per day, and the fact that claimant and his wife had divorced, such that the wife was no longer providing attendant care benefits. The JCC entered an order which provided that claimant was entitled to receive 24 hours per day of attendant care benefits and which accommodated the statutory amendment and change in claimant’s marital status. The order, however, made provisions for periods of time which were covered by the prior compensation order but did not provide that the E/C would receive credit for payments they had made under the prior order. The E/C sought rehearing, and rehearing was denied.
It appears from the briefs and the contentions of counsel during oral argument that the parties are in agreement that claimant is entitled to 24 hours per day of attendant care and that the E/C are entitled to credit for what they have paid under the original compensation order. Accordingly, the attendant care provisions in the order appealed from are affirmed. The denial of rehearing is reversed, and this cause is remanded so that the modification order may be amended to provide that the E/C receive credit or entitlement to a setoff for attendant care benefits they have paid under the original compensation order. The JCC may take additional evidence as to the extent of the E/C’s entitlement.
The order appealed from is affirmed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
BOOTH, SMITH and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.