Construction Finishing v. Combs
| Decision Date | 15 November 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1014,89-1014 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2803 CONSTRUCTION FINISHING, and American States Insurance Company, Appellants, v. A.E. COMBS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Dana A. Grubbs of Marlow, Shofi, Smith, Hennen, Smith and Jenkins, Tampa, for appellants.
Alex Lancaster, Sarasota, for appellee.
In this workers' compensation appeal we are asked to review an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) granting attendant care benefits and requiring the employer/carrier (e/c) to provide rehabilitation. With respect to the attendant care award, e/c argue that the need for such is not supported by competent substantial evidence and that the JCC's failure to make findings as to duration, quantity and quality of claimant's wife's attendant care requires reversal. E/c further maintain that the JCC erred in ordering rehabilitation where no claim for that service had been filed. Finding e/c's arguments to be well taken, we reverse.
Turning first to that portion of the JCC's order requiring the e/c to provide rehabilitation, we observe that even though rehabilitation was not an issue presented for determination, the decretal portion of the JCC's order directed e/c "to assist the claimant in obtaining reemployment or some other form of rehabilitation." Claimant argues that the inclusion of this provision is not reversible error because it merely directs the e/c to comply with existing statutory requirements. This argument, however, ignores the fact that rehabilitation was not an issue and thus, inclusion in the order of such a directive was premature. See Village Inn Restaurant v. Aridi, 543 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Moreover, inclusion of such a provision in the decretal portion of the order was not in keeping with the self-executing nature of Florida's Workers' Compensation Act. Accordingly, we strike that portion of the order appealed from directing the e/c to provide rehabilitation benefits.
Concerning the claim for attendant care benefits, the record reveals that claimant is a forty-year-old man who suffered a compensable injury on May 10, 1988, when he fell from a sawhorse and landed on his back while performing a plastering job for appellant/employer, Construction Finishing. Claimant has not returned to work since the date of his accident. Eventually, claimant came under the care of Dr. Rush, an orthopedist, who admitted claimant into the hospital on August 26, 1988. During a one week hospital stay, Dr. Rush requested an evaluation by Dr. Kurzner, an orthopedic surgeon. Diagnostic studies revealed a possible problem with the left disc at L5-S1. Although claimant was discharged on September 1, 1988, a myelogram was performed to determine the nature of the disc problem. The myelogram revealed a herniated disc on the left side at L5-S1, and a laminectomy was performed on November 4, 1988.
Shortly after the surgery, a claim was filed for attendant care that had been provided by claimant's wife. After a hearing, the JCC awarded the wife $200.00 per week for her assistance. The award extended from the date of the accident to the date of the hearing on March 23, 1989, and continuing into the future for as long as claimant required assistance. Apparently, the JCC neglected to exclude the periods during which claimant was hospitalized and presumably had no need of home attendant care. The JCC also failed to make specific findings concerning the number of hours needed and the hourly rate that would compensate the wife for her efforts. 1
We begin our analysis of the attendant care award by observing that such benefits may be awarded when a family member provides services beyond those which are normally provided gratuitously. Thus, family members can be compensated for helping the claimant dress and bathe, assisting with bodily functions, administering medication and the like. Don Harris Plumbing Co. v. Henderson, 454 So.2d 745,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rockette v. Space Gateway Support
...with sanitary functions. See, e.g., Montgomery Ward v. Lovell, 652 So.2d 509, 511 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Constr. Finishing v. Combs, 569 So.2d 919, 920 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Moreover, the fact that the claimant's treating physician did not prescribe attendant care is not, as the judge appeared......
-
Martin Electronics v. Jones, Case No. 1D03-0682 (Fla. App. 1st Dist. 3/22/2004)
...the award, except for the failure to credit appellants for the 17 days claimant spent in the hospital. See Constr. Finishing v. Combs, 569 So. 2d 919, 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (reversing the "JCC's award of attendant care . . . for those periods during which claimant was hospitalized" becaus......