Ulmer v. Jon David Coiffures
| Decision Date | 16 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. AX-212,AX-212 |
| Parties | Terri Lynn ULMER, Appellant, v. JON DAVID COIFFURES, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Roger W. Plata, of Robinson & Plata, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Peter N. Meros, of Meros & Smith, St. Petersburg, for appellees.
Appellant Terri Lynn Ulmer appeals an order denying her claim for medical benefits to compensate for the expense of hiring assistants to perform certain of the claimant's job functions which she was no longer able to perform due to a job-related medical condition. The deputy commissioner concluded that such expenses do not fall within the ambit of medical benefits recoverable under the Florida Workers' Compensation Act. We agree and affirm.
Claimant, a hairstylist, developed a reaction to certain chemicals used in her profession and was diagnosed as having eczematous dermatitis of the hands. Her treating physician advised that she avoid contact with such chemicals and refrain from shampooing her customers' hair. Adherence to this advice resulted in an improvement in the claimant's skin condition. She was required, however, to pay "shampoo girls" to shampoo her clients' hair. Prior to development of dermatitis the claimant had performed all of the shampoos for her clients to avoid the additional expense of shampoo girls. Appellant filed the claim below for reimbursement of the cost of using these shampoo girls, asserting that this compensation was available as a medical benefit provided for by § 440.13(1), Florida Statutes (1981), which provides in pertinent part:
[T]he employer shall furnish to the employee such remedial treatment, care, and attendance under the direction and supervision of a qualified physician or surgeon or other recognized practitioner, nurse, or hospital, and for such period as the nature of the injury or the process of recovering may require, including medicines, crutches, artificial members and other apparatus. (e.s.)
Judicial interpretation of this provision has resulted in awards of compensation for such expenses as attendant care for a blinded worker, Khawam v. Collision Clinics International, Inc., 413 So.2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); modification of vehicles to allow operation by a handicapped driver, Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Cooper, 382 So.2d 1331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); installation and maintenance of swimming pools for prescribed hydrotherapy, Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Vaughn, 381 So.2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Cover v. TG&Y, 377 So.2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), and child care services to relieve tension and pressure experienced by a recuperating worker/mother, Doctor's Hospital of Lake Worth v. Robinson, 411 So.2d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Rejected claims have included compensation for ambulance transportation of the injured worker to his father's funeral, State, County Correctional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grantham v. Cherry Hosp., 8910IC867
...assistants to perform the part of a job that a claimant was unable to do because of her work-induced disability. Ulmer v. Jon David Coiffures, 458 So.2d 1218 (1984). The court recognized that under certain circumstances medical allowances had been made for vehicles, pools, child care and th......