PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND F.A. RICHARDS & ASSOCIATES, APPELLANTS,
v.
VALERIE ZABIK, 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 First District Court of Appeal reversed an award of attendant care services to an injured worker. The court held that carrying groceries and laundry up apartment stairs does not constitute medically necessary attendant care under Florida's workers' compensation statute, despite the worker living alone.
The court held that the attendant-care provision does not encompass services for carrying groceries and laundry up apartment stairs. The statute does not create a special exception for claimants who live alone and lack family or friends to assist with domestic chores. Such quality-of-life and supportive services may be indemnified under disability compensation benefits but not under the attendant-care provision.
[1] Attendant care services under Florida Statutes section 440.13 do not encompass ordinary household duties such as carrying groceries and laundry, even for claimants who li…
[2] The definition of attendant care in section 440.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes, when construed with section 440.13(2)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes, does not cover services for "q…
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“the definition of "attendant care" in section 440.13(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2000), construed with section 440.13(2)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes (2000), does not encompass the types of services for which attendant care was awarded to Appellee”
Establishes the core holding that the statute does not cover the services awarded
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceValerie Zabik was injured and awarded two hours per week of attendant-care services by a Judge of Compensation Claims. The specific services consisted…
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 Statutory Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
Employer/Servicing Agent (E/SA) appeal the final order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) awarding Appel-lee, Valerie Zabik, two hours of attendant-care services a week. Specifically, the award involves assistance in “carrying groceries and laundry up the three flights of stairs to her apartment.” Given the facts stated in the JCC’s order, we conclude that the definition of “attendant care” in section 440.13(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2000), construed with section 440.13(2)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes (2000), does not encompass the types of services for which attendant care.was awarded to Appellee. See Montgomery Ward v. Lovell, 652 So. 2d 509, 511-12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (reversing award of attendant care for household services, but noting that statute facially “does not prohibit the performance of household duties by an attendant who is otherwise medically necessary”).
Contrary to Appel-lee’s contention at trial and on appeal, we do not construe this statute or the applicable case law as designating a special blanket exception (to the ordinary “household duties” rule) for claimants who live alone and do not have family members or friends available to provide dependable, convenient assistance with domestic chores when needed. Such “quality of life activities” and “supportive services” might well be “indemnified under disability compensation benefits rather than attendant care service that is medically necessary,” but they are not covered under the attendant-care provision at issue here. See Marlowe v. Dogs Only Grooming, 589 So. 2d 990, 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Appellee misplaces her reliance on certain language in Allied Discount Tires v. Cook, 587 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), which might support affirmance here if Cook had not been decided pursuant to an earlier, different version of section 440.13.
REVERSED.
KAHN, C.J.; and LEWIS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marlowe v. Dogs Only Grooming & the Travelers Ins. Co., 589 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- 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)
- Zabik v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Dist. & F.A. Richard & Assocs., Inc., 901 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)