Builders Square v. Drake
| Decision Date | 15 February 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1387,89-1387 |
| Citation | 557 So.2d 115 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D445 BUILDERS SQUARE and KM Administrative Services, Appellants, v. Robert DRAKE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Thomas A. Koval and Carla S. Matthews, of Moss, Henderson & Lloyd, Vero Beach, for appellants.
Robert C. Gray and O. John Alpizar of O. John Alpizar, Palm Bay, and Bill McCabe of Shepherd, McCabe & Cooley, Longwood, for appellee.
The employer/carrier seek review of a workers' compensation order awarding claimant medical benefits, catastrophic loss benefits and attendant care for 24 hours per day. We find no error on appeal and affirm the order. 1
Claimant sustained a compensable injury to his lower back which eventually required surgical treatment. Claimant underwent two surgical procedures on his spine, and in the course of his second surgery, his spinal cord had to be severed. As a result, claimant was rendered a paraplegic, and subsequently required both skilled and unskilled help in attending to most of the aspects of his life. We find competent, substantial evidence to support the judge's finding of a causal relationship between claimant's industrial accident and his subsequent paraplegia.
The judge awarded around-the-clock attendant care to claimant in order to provide him with assistance in his daily life. We find the testimony of claimant, his family, and his physicians sufficient to support this award. The evidence demonstrated that although the 69-year-old claimant had the use of his upper extremities, he required constant assistance in attending to his personal hygiene, obtaining medication, and moving from his bed to his wheelchair or to the bathroom during the day and at night. According to his physician, claimant needed to have someone on call and available at all times to assist him or to clean up after him when the need arose. Thus, the award of attendant care 24 hours per day was proper. See City of North Miami v. Towers, 557 So.2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). See also Standard Blasting & Coating v. Hayman, 476 So.2d 1385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), where this court noted that it is proper to award attendant care for the hours when a spouse is required to be on call and available to attend to the claimant's needs even if the spouse is engaged in otherwise non-compensable activities at home.
In addition, although the employer/carrier provided a nurse and an aide for short...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson Manor Nursing Home v. Ortiz
...necessity. The JCC's determinations concerning attendant care must be based on competent substantial evidence. Builders Square v. Drake, 557 So.2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA1990). Attendant care is awardable only under that section of the Workers' Compensation Act requiring the employer to furnish c......
-
Burris v. Goodyear
...attendant care must be based on competent substantial evidence. See Williams v. Amax Chemical Corp., supra, and Builders Square v. Drake, 557 So.2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Further, while a JCC may under certain circumstances reject unrefuted medical testimony as to attendant care, it is im......
-
Caron v. Systematic Air Services
...member is involved in other household activities while simultaneously monitoring the activities of a claimant. Builders Square v. Drake, 557 So.2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Williams v. Amax Chem. Corp., 543 So.2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Amador v. Parts Depot, Inc., 508 So.2d 1320 (Fla. 1st ......
-
Broadspire v. Jones
...involved in other household activities while simultaneously monitoring the activities of a claimant”) (citing Builders Square v. Drake, 557 So.2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) ; Williams v. Amax Chem. Corp., 543 So.2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) ; Amador v. Parts Depot, Inc., 508 So.2d 1320 (Fla. 1st......