DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND ALEXSIS, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHNNIE GRIER, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed an award of attendant care benefits during non-crisis periods, holding that the medical evidence did not support compensability for tasks beyond those gratuitously performed by family members or tasks not specifically prescribed by the treating physician. The court affirmed the award of attendant care benefits during crisis periods.
The court held that competent, substantial evidence supported the award of attendant care benefits during crisis periods, but no competent, substantial evidence supported the award during non-crisis periods. Tasks such as cooking and cleaning performed by family members fall within gratuitous family duties and are not compensable, and tasks not specifically prescribed by the treating physician as medically necessary are not compensable attendant care.
[1] Attendant care benefits are compensable when supported by competent, substantial evidence, including for "crisis periods."
[2] Tasks performed gratuitously by family members, such as cooking and cleaning, are generally not compensable as attendant care.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The majority of tasks performed by claimant's daughters, i.e., cooking and cleaning, are not those going beyond the scope of duties performed gratuitously by a family member.”
Establishes that routine household tasks performed by family members are not compensable attendant care under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnnie Grier, a workers' compensation claimant, was awarded past and future attendant care benefits by the judge of compensation claims. Her daughter…
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 appeal arises from an order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) awarding claimant, Johnnie Grier, her daughters and her boyfriend past and future attendant care benefits. We hold there is competent, substantial evidence to support the JCC’s award of attendant care benefits during claimant’s “crisis periods.” However, we find no competent, substantial evidence to support the award of attendant care during non-crisis periods.
The majority of tasks performed by claimant’s daughters, i.e., cooking and cleaning, are not those going beyond the scope of duties performed gratuitously by a family member. § 440.13(2)(g), Fla.Stat. (1991); Doctors Hospital v. Billings, 591 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Barkett Computer Service v. Santana, 568 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Walt Disney World Co. v. Harrison, 443 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The other tasks performed by claimant’s daughters, although extraordinary in nature, are not compensable in this case because Dr. Jacome did not testify that claimant needed assistance with such tasks. § 440.13(2)(g), Fla.Stat. (1991). Dr. Jacome stated that claimant only needed assistance with housekeeping and driving.
As to Mr. Gerald, he performed tasks such as administering medication, helping claimant to the bathroom, preparing lunch, giving claimant leg and back massages, and retriev ing drinks. Although these tasks appear to be of a type normally compensable as attendant care, again, Dr. Jacome did not specify that claimant required assistance for these tasks. § 440.13(2)(g), Fla.Stat. Further, driving claimant to her mother’s home and driving claimant’s daughters to the store are not compensable under section 440.13(2)(a). Marlowe v. Dogs Only Grooming, 589 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (supportive services such as driving claimant to the store and other places, other than transportation necessary for medical treatment pursuant to section 440.13(6), constitute quality of life activities indemnified under disability compensation benefits rather than attendant care service that is medically necessary); Timothy Bowser Construction Co. v. Kowalski, 605 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Therefore, the award of past and future attendant care benefits during non-crisis periods is reversed. All other aspects of the JCC’s order are affirmed.
ZEHMER, C.J., and BOOTH and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Purple Pride, Inc. v. Burgess (Fla. 1st DCA 2026)…5 So. 2d 885, 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); see also Broadspire v. Jones, 164 So. 3d 708, 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (quality-of-life travel includes visits “to the park"). It also includes visits to a claimant's mother's home. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Grier, 648 So. 2d 805, 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). It even includes transportation to a claimant's father's funeral. State, Hendry Cnty. Corr. Inst., Div. of Risk Mgmt. v. Hughes, 412 So. 2d 922, 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In short, “transportation other than to a doctor” 1…
Authorities Cited
- Walt Disney World Co. v. Harrison, 443 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Marlowe v. Dogs Only Grooming & the Travelers Ins. Co., 589 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Barkett Computer Serv. & Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Santana, 568 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- City OF Delray Beach v. Aero-Dri Div. OF Davey Compressor Co., 605 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Doctors Hosp. & Cont'l Loss Adjusting Servs. v. Billings, 591 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)