Perez v. Pennsuco Cement & Aggregates
| Decision Date | 02 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. BL-364,BL-364 |
| Citation | 504 So.2d 1274,11 Fla. L. Weekly 2502 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2502 Pedro Luis PEREZ, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. PENNSUCO CEMENT & AGGREGATES and Insurance Company of North America, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. |
H. Jack Miller of Miller, Hodges, Kagan & Chait, P.A., Miami, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Alfred D. Bieley, P.A., Miami, for appellee/cross-appellant.
This is a cross-appeal, the direct appeal by Perez having been voluntarily dismissed, from a workers' compensation order finding Perez entitled to attendant care services and awarding his wife compensation for those services. Pennsuco Cement & Aggregates and the Insurance Company of North America (E/C) contend the order is not supported by competent substantial evidence. We agree and reverse with directions on remand.
The E/C argues, in summary, that the wife should not have been awarded payment for attendant care services from 1 August 1981 through 28 February 1983 on the basis of eight hours per day, seven days a week, because she was working full-time during this period; only devoting one hour before work and one hour after work to the care of her husband. Perez's minimal response to this argument is that the wife is entitled to reimbursement for the time her mother spent performing services for Perez. However, there is nothing in the record to indicate how much time Perez's mother-in-law spent caring for him, other than testimony by the wife that she fixed his lunch.
The E/C also argues that it was error for the deputy commissioner to make an attendant care award for the time Perez spent in the hospital based on Prestressed Systems, Inc. v. Goff, 461 So.2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The time period involved is from 20 September 1982 until 5 October 1982. In his brief, Perez concedes the award allowed for this time is erroneous.
According to Walt Disney World Co. v. Harrison, 443 So.2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), a blanket award of attendant care or services without regard to the actual performance of those services is error. In Harrison, the claimant was required to wear a full body cast for several weeks, and therefore was severely restricted in her movement. Not having been informed by the employer that she was entitled to attendant services, the claimant attempted to care for herself with limited help from her mother and a friend. Upon filing a claim, the claimant in Harrison was awarded attendant care on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson Manor Nursing Home v. Ortiz
...future by an outside attendant. See Barkett Computer Services v. Santana, 568 So.2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA1990); Perez v. Pennsuco Cement & Aggregates, 504 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA1986). On the question of medical need for attendant care, Dr. Yates' testimony was unrefuted. In other cases, we ha......
-
Am. Airlines v. Hennessey
...without regard to the actual performance of those services is error.” Perez, 541 So.2d at 654 (citing Perez v. Pennsuco Cement Aggregates, 504 So.2d 1274, 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) ).The JCC accepted as credible Mrs. Hennessey's deposition testimony as to the specific amount of time she spen......
-
Bojangles v. Kuring
...587 So.2d 1328 (Fla.1991); Orange County Sheriff's Dep't v. Perez, 541 So.2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Perez v. Pennsuco Cement & Aggregates, 504 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Although the JCC's order cites competent substantial evidence establishing the claimant's need for care, no mentio......
-
Diana v. HLS Companies
...substantial evidence the quantity, quality, and duration of the compensable attendant services claimed. Perez v. Pennsuco Cement Aggregates, 504 So.2d 1274, 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)(quoting Walt Disney World Co. v. Harrison, 443 So.2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)). Attendant care services are ge......