Industrial Blowpipe v. Capps

Citation940 So.2d 442
Decision Date29 March 2006
Docket NumberNo. 1D04-5678.,1D04-5678.
PartiesINDUSTRIAL BLOWPIPE and Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Company, Appellants, v. William T. CAPPS, Respondent.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

William H. Rogner of Hurley, Rogner, Miller, Cox, Waranch & Westcott, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellants.

Neal L. Betancourt and George D. Rotchford of Rotchford & Betancourt, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this workers' compensation appeal, Industrial Blowpipe, Inc., and Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Company (the employer and the carrier, respectively) appeal orders of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying a motion to disqualify Judge Wilbur Anderson and awarding attendant care benefits to claimant and appellee William T. Capps. Claimant cross-appeals challenging the rate of compensation paid for the attendant care benefits. We affirm without further comment the disqualification issue, and the issue raised on cross-appeal. As to the award of attendant care benefits, for the reasons explained below we affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, and remand for further proceedings.

In February 1985, claimant was working on the roof of a two-story building in a lumbermill when the building caught fire. He was forced to jump from the building sustaining serious injuries, including third degree burns and multiple severe fractures to his legs and vertebrae. The accident was accepted as compensable, and the employer/carrier has provided multiple medical benefits, including numerous surgeries.

The issue before us is whether competent substantial evidence in the record supports the award of attendant care benefits for compensable care performed by the claimant's spouse. See generally, Frederick v. United Airlines, 688 So.2d 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Not all attendant care services are compensable. As we explained in AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc. v. Castro, 896 So.2d 828, 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (quoting Socolow v. Flanigans Enters., 877 So.2d 742, 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)) (citations omitted):

"Generally, attendant care considered medically necessary includes only bathing, dressing, administering medication, and assisting with sanitary functions." On the other hand, "housekeeping, transportation other than to a doctor, and other normal household duties that reflect on quality of life rather than medical necessity are generally considered gratuitous and not compensable." Household services may, in limited circumstances, be compensable if the caretaker (family member or not) substantially departs from his or her daily routine to provide care, or if the claimant is completely prevented from doing such activities on his or her own.

We find that competent substantial evidence in the record supports the JCC's award of active and passive attendant care benefits from the date of claimant's discharge from the hospital on April 2, 1985 to March 17, 1992, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Capps v. Industrial Blowpipe
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 21, 2009
    ...attendant care benefits. That order was appealed by the employer and carrier and cross-appealed by claimant. See Indus. Blowpipe v. Capps, 940 So.2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). We affirmed the issue raised in claimant's cross-appeal without comment, but affirmed in part, reversed in part, and ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT