ROBERT JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE, RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT, APPELLEES
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.
Robert Johnson appeals a workers' compensation judge's decision denying certain attendant care benefits for his wife Sylvia. The appellate court reverses in part, holding that Sylvia Johnson is entitled to statutory attendant care rates (not minimum wage) and benefits for her three-day training period at the rehabilitation hospital.
The court reversed both rulings. The JCC erred in using minimum wage rates because there was no evidence Sylvia Johnson left her job for any reason other than to care for her husband, and therefore she is entitled to statutory attendant care rates. The JCC also erred in denying benefits for the training period, which should be compensated because it was conducted at the authorized treating physician's request and with employer/carrier support to enable her to learn to care for her husband.
[1] An employed spouse providing attendant care to a claimant is entitled to compensation at the appropriate statutory rates, not minimum wage, when there is no evidence the…
[2] Attendant care benefits are compensable for the time a claimant's spouse spends in training to provide care, especially when requested by a physician and supported by the…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“there is no record evidence that Sylvia Johnson left her job for any reason other than to care for her husband”
Establishes the standard for when an employed spouse's attendant care should be compensated at statutory rates rather than minimum wage.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Johnson was injured and required attendant care. His wife Sylvia Johnson left her employment to provide this care. Sylvia attended a three-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 Attendant Care Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Robert Johnson seeks the reversal of the amended final order entered by the Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”) and a remand with directions that Sylvia Johnson, his wife, be awarded aide and attendant care benefits for the three day training session during her husband’s hospitalization, retroactive benefits for 24-hour attendant care provided by Sylvia Johnson, and for the recalculation of all such benefits at the appropriate reimbursement rates provided for by statute.
We agree with Appellant’s arguments that: (i) the JCC erred in utilizing the minimum wage rate to compensate the employed spouse’s attendant care, and (ii) the JCC erred in refusing to award attendant care benefits for the three days the claimant’s spouse spent at the rehabilitation hospital training to care for her husband.1
First, we agree with Appellant that there is no record evidence that Sylvia Johnson left her job for any reason other than to care for her husband. See Office Depot, Inc. v. Sweikata, 737 So. 2d 1189, 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)(reversing because there was no evidence that the claimant’s mother left her job for any reason but to care for her daughter). Accordingly, we reverse the JCC’s ruling on this issue and remand with instructions to award compensation for Sylvia Johnson’s attendant care services at the appropriate statutory rates.
Second, we agree that attendant care benefits should be awarded for the time that Sylvia Johnson spent at the rehabilitation hospital training to care for her husband at the undisputed request of the authorized treating physician and with the undisputed support of the employer/carrier. See Builders Square v. Drake, 557 So. 2d 115, 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)(ruling that claimant’s daughter’s attendant care was properly awarded because she remained in attendance to assist and to learn new skills to help her father). Accordingly, we reverse the JCC’s ruling on this issue and remand with instructions to award compensation for Sylvia Johnson’s time spent at the rehabilitation hospital training to care for her husband.
Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded with instructions.
BOOTH, BROWNING and POLSTON, J.J., concur. . We find no error in the JCC’s denial of Appellant’s claim for retroactive compensation for the 24-hour attendant care provided by Sylvia Johnson.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Builders Square & KM Admin. Servs. v. Drake, 557 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Off. Depot, Inc. v. Sweikata, 737 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)