King Lumber Co. v. Bloomfield
| Decision Date | 01 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1660,89-1660 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D1181 KING LUMBER COMPANY and Feisco, Appellants, v. Renford BLOOMFIELD, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Donahue, Virginia M. Stalder, of Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett & Hurt, Vero Beach, for appellants.
Steven M. Meyers, of Meyers & Mooney, Orlando, for appellee.
Employer/carrier seek review of a workers' compensation order by which the judge of compensation claims ordered the employer/carrier to provide the permanently totally disabled claimant with past and future attendant care, with attendant care awarded for 12 hours per day between December 6, 1986 and September 11, 1987, and for 24 hours per day after that date. Services after September 1988 were rendered by claimant's nephew.
The parties present their argument in terms of record support for "modification" of the terms of an earlier order that awarded attendant care for 12 hours per day, based on "change of condition." Cf., section 440.28, Florida Statutes. However, the order on appeal is more properly reviewed as one which simply awards medical benefits for claimant's condition as it existed after the date of the earlier order. Thus, it is a new award of medical benefits found to be medically necessary, not a modification or change in class of permanent benefits fixed by the prior order. We find competent, substantial evidence as to claimant's current physical condition sufficient to negate any arguable inference based on law of the case as to the quantum of care previously awarded, and sufficient to support the award of such care for 12 hours per day through September 11, 1987, and for 24 hours per day from that point forward. See City of North Miami v. Towers, 557 So.2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), and Builders Square v. Drake, 557 So.2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
This court's opinions in Mr. C's TV Rental v. Murray, 559 So.2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), and Williams v. Amax Chemical Corp., 543 So.2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), indicate that the 1989 amendment to section 440.13(2)(e)2 () should be applied to payments for services rendered after the effective date of the amendment, whether or not such benefits had been awarded by a prior order. That amendment limits to 12 hours per day the amount of compensation payable to a family member providing claimant with attendant care services. However, because "family member" is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. v. Faircloth
...Inc., 563 So.2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Firestone Tire & Rubber v. Knowles, 561 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); King Lumber Co. v. Bloomfield, 560 So.2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Mr. C's TV Rental v. Murray, 559 So.2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA ALLEN and WOLF, JJ., concur. ERVIN, J., specially concu......
-
Walt Disney World Co. v. McCrea
...the basic principles of statutory construction and not liberally in favor of either employee or employer."). Cf. King Lumber Co. v. Bloomfield, 560 So.2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (the definition of "family member" in section 440.13 does not include a nephew). In Lemus v. Ocala Star Banner, 6......
-
PARAVE v. TRI COUNTY SECURITY, INC., 98-2670.
...found that claimant is in need of such care. See Builders Square v. Drake, 557 So.2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); King Lumber Co. v. Bloomfield, 560 So.2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Collura v. Multi Line Can Company, 598 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA ...
-
King v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 95-811
...care. In recognizing that attendant care could be a new medical award in the 1992 order, the judge cited King Lumber Co. v. Bloomfield, 560 So.2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), which indicates that ordinarily it is not necessary to modify a prior order on attendant care for a different period of ......