MEPCO/CENTRALAB AND TRAVELERS INSURANCE, APPELLANTS,
v.
DIANA MILES, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed penalties and interest on attendant care benefits but affirmed the award of four hours per day of aid and attendant care at minimum wage, finding the claimant's husband performed extraordinary services qualifying for the full amount without apportionment.
Penalties and interest on attendant care benefits must be stricken as inadvertently included, but the award of four hours daily attendant care benefits is affirmed because the claimant's husband performed extraordinary services.
[1] Penalties and interest on past due attendant care benefits must be stricken when inadvertently included in a workers' compensation order, but the underlying award of bene…
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 intelligenceA workers' compensation claimant was injured and required aid and attendant care services provided by her husband for at least four hours each day.…
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 Extraordinary Services cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Senior Judge.
This is an appeal of a final workers’ compensation order which awarded claimant aid and attendant care benefits at the prevailing minimum wage rate together with interest and penalties thereon, four hours per day, seven days per week from the date of accident to the date of hearing. We reverse the award of penalties and interest against the employer/carrier (E/C) for past due home aid and attendant care benefits, based on appel-lee’s agreement that the award of interest and penalties on attendant care benefits should be stricken from the compensation order as it was apparently inadvertently placed in the order. The order is otherwise affirmed. On the merits of the award, the E/C challenges only the number of hours for which benefits were awarded. It is clear from the record evidence that claimant’s husband performs extraordinary services for claimant such as those enumerated in Honeycutt v. R.G. Butlers Dairy, 525 So. 2d 984, 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), at least four hours each day. Thus, it is not necessary, as appellant argues, to apportion the time claimant’s husband spends doing housework out of the award.
The order shall stand amended by striking the award of penalties and interest above noted, and is otherwise affirmed.
ERVIN and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Honeycutt v. R.G. Butlers Dairy & Whiting Nat'l Servs., 525 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)