City of Leesburg v. Balliet, ZZ-278
| Decision Date | 12 May 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. ZZ-278,ZZ-278 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CITY OF LEESBURG and U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Appellants, v. Thomas W. BALLIET, Appellee. |
John R. Gierach of Gierach & Ewald, P. A., Orlando, for appellants.
Irvin A. Meyers of Meyers, Mooney & Adler, P. A., Orlando, for appellee.
The employer and carrier appeal a workers' compensation order awarding compensation for attendant care services which were provided to claimant more than four years prior to the claim for such services. Appellants argue they had no notice of the need for attendant care services. Alternatively, they contend the services rendered were primarily housekeeping services which are not compensable.
Florida Statutes, Section 440.13, provides that an employee shall not be entitled to recover any amount personally expended for remedial treatment, care, and attendance unless the employee shall have requested the employer to provide such treatment or service and the employer failed to do so, or unless the nature of the injury required such treatment, nursing, and services and the employer, having knowledge of such injury, failed to provide the same. In his order, the deputy commissioner did not make a specific finding as to whether the employer or carrier had notice of claimant's need for attendant care services. It may be that the deputy concluded that the nature of the injury was such as to impute knowledge claimant's need for attendant care services to the employer and carrier. Silver Springs Sportswear v. Marlin, 389 So.2d 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). We remand this case to the deputy commissioner for an expression of his findings with regard to this notice issue.
As to the second point raised by appellants, it does appear that some of the services listed by the deputy commissioner as the basis for the award of attendant care services included housekeeping services provided claimant by his father. Housekeeping services are not compensable under Florida Statutes, Section 440.13. South Coast Construction Company v. Chizauskas, 172 So.2d 442 (Fla.1965). On remand, the deputy commissioner should distinguish between the types of services provided to claimant and apportion out the non-compensable housekeeping portion of the services provided. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Weaver, 226 So.2d 801 (Fla.1969).
REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aino's Custom Slip Covers v. DeLucia
...benefits to the spouse. As a general rule, household duties a spouse would normally provide are not compensable. City of Leesburg v. Balliet, 413 So.2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The deputy must try to apportion the time spent so that the E/C pay only for attendant care rendered to the claima......
-
Barkett Computer Service v. Santana
...Co. v. Chizauskas, 172 So.2d 442 (Fla.1965); Reason v. Motorola, Inc., 432 So.2d 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); City of Leesburg v. Balliet, 413 So.2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). None of the exceptions apply in the instant case. Claimant's husband is not performing any of the nursing-type duties ass......
-
Montgomery Ward v. Lovell
...non-compensable. See, e.g., Barkett Computer Serv. v. Santana, 568 So.2d 520, 521-22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); City of Leesburg v. Balliet, 413 So.2d 860, 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Thus, by providing a definition excluding household services from attendant care benefits, the legislature merely re......
-
Walt Disney World Co. v. Harrison
...such nursing services and if the employer, having knowledge of the injury, failed to provide such services. City of Leesburg v. Balliet, 413 So.2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The nature of the claimant's injury and necessary treatment may be such as to impute knowledge of claimant's need for a......