Florida Medical Center v. Renzi

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Florida Medical Center v. Renzi

464 So. 2d 231, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 501, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12595

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 27, 1985

DocketNo. AY-22

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 464 So. 2d 231 (Florida Medical Center v. Renzi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Florida Medical Center v. Renzi, 464 So. 2d 231, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 501, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12595 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a workers’ compensation order awarding claimant, inter alia, $4,800 for eight weeks of attendant care rendered by her parents beginning February 24, 1983, plus interest thereon, and $35 per week beginning April 22, 1983, and continuing, for attendant care services. The employer/ carrier argue that the award of attendant care services rendered prior to a request for such services should be reversed. However, the employer/carrier did not raise this issue before the deputy commissioner, and thus the question is not preserved for review. Don Harms Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Henderson, 454 So.2d 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), Sunland Hospital v. Garrett, 415 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We affirm the award for attendant care services for the eight-week period following claimant’s discharge from the hospital since there is competent, substantial evidence that the services provided by claimant’s parents were necessary and beyond those normally provided by family members gratuitously. Don Harris Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Henderson, supra. We must reverse that portion of the second award of attendant care services which the record shows is reimbursement for household services performed by claimant’s parents, since such services, when performed by a family member living with the claimant, are presumed to be gratuitous. Sheraton Bal Harbour v. Platis, 447 So.2d 987, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). However, we affirm that part of the second award, prospective in nature, which requires the employer/carrier to pay claimant $35 per week, inasmuch as the award permits the claimant to hire someone to perform those household duties which competent, substantial evidence establishes claimant cannot perform without possible endangerment to her life.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

BOOTH, SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a workers’ compensation order awarding claimant, inter alia, $4,800 for eight weeks of attendant care rendered by her parents beginning February 24, 1983, plus interest thereon, and $35 per week beginning April 22, 1983, and continuing, for attendant care services. The employer/ carrier argue that the award of attendant care services rendered prior to a request for such services should be reversed. However, the employer/carrier did not raise this issue before the deputy commissioner, and thus the question is not preserved for review. Don Harms Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Henderson, 454 So.2d 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), Sunland Hospital v. Garrett, 415 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We affirm the award for attendant care services for the eight-week period following claimant’s discharge from the hospital since there is competent, substantial evidence that the services provided by claimant’s parents were necessary and beyond those normally provided by family members gratuitously. Don Harris Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Henderson, supra. We must reverse that portion of the second award of attendant care services which the record shows is reimbursement for household services performed by claimant’s parents, since such services, when performed by a family member living with the claimant, are presumed to be gratuitous. Sheraton Bal Harbour v. Platis, 447 So.2d 987, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). However, we affirm that part of the second award, prospective in nature, which requires the employer/carrier to pay claimant $35 per week, inasmuch as the award permits the claimant to hire someone to perform those household duties which competent, substantial evidence establishes claimant cannot perform without possible endangerment to her life.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

BOOTH, SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

464 So. 2d 231, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 501, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-medical-center-v-renzi-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack