BEVERLY ENTERPRISES AND TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
MARTHA DORIS COLLINGSWORTH, 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 affirmed workers' compensation award of attendant care benefits including household services, holding that while ordinary household services are not automatically compensable, they may be awarded when circumstances warrant.
Attendant care benefits may include household services when the circumstances of the case justify such an award, despite the general rule that purely household services are not ordinarily compensable.
[1] Attendant care benefits in workers' compensation cases may include household services when circumstances warrant, notwithstanding the general rule that purely household s…
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 intelligenceAn employer and workers' compensation carrier appealed a judge's award of attendant care benefits to an injured worker that included household service…
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.
The employer/carrier appeal a workers’ compensation order by which the judge awarded attendant care benefits. In challenging the inclusion of household services in this award, the employer/carrier rely on Montgomery Ward v. Lovell, 652 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
However, the Montgomery Ward decision does not absolutely preclude such awards. Rather, Montgomery Ward applies the general rule that ordinary services of a purely household nature are not usually compensable, especially when those services merely reflect a claimant’s individual choice as to “quality of life.” Indeed, Montgomery Ward recognizes that in some circumstances attendant care may encompass household services. And numerous other decisions of this court have established that there are a variety of situations in which household services may be awarded. See, e.g., Allied Discount Tires v. Cook, 587 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); CATV Support Serv. v. Lohr, 509 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Kraft Dairy Group v. Sorge, 509 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); DeLong v. 3015 West Corp., 491 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Walt Disney World v. Harrison, 443 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
We conclude that the award was likewise proper in the present case, and the appealed order is therefore affirmed.
ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Francie Diana v. HLS Cos. & CNA Ins. Cos., 670 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…the claimant’s injury did not permit an award of attendant care to assist with household services. That was an error. Indeed, this court recently recognized that there were numerous cases permitting such awards. Beverly Enterprises v. Collingsworth, 670 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The JCC also erred by ruling that the amendment to section 440.13(2)©, adding language describing attendant care as “beyond the scope of household duties” could be applied to preclude an award for such services after the effect…1 / 2
-
Southwood Timber Co. & TIG Specialty Ins. v. Hicks, 959 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…s no definition of attendant care. The Judge of Compensation Claims correctly found this case to be similar to the circumstances in Walt Disney World Company v. Harrison, 443 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). See also Beverly Enters. v. Collingsworth, 670 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)1; Diana v. HLS Cos., 670 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)2. Although the Judge of Compensation Claims did not err in awarding attendant care benefits in this case, the order does not clearly set forth the specific type and amount…
Authorities Cited
- Walt Disney World Co. v. Harrison, 443 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Montgomery Ward & Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Francoise Lovell, 652 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Allied Disc. Tires & Executive Risk Consultants, Inc. v. Cook, 587 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Delong v. 3015 W. Corp. & Rockwood Ins. Co., 491 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Kraft Dairy Grp. & Ideal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sorge, 509 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Catv Support Servs., Inc. v. Philip B. Lohr for the Estate of Robbie Gene Booe, 509 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)