LYKES PASCO PACKING CO. v. Chessher

District Court of Appeal of Florida

LYKES PASCO PACKING CO. v. Chessher

33 So. 3d 809, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 5534, 2010 WL 1643231

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 26, 2010

Docket1D09-5678

StatusPublished

This text of 33 So. 3d 809 (LYKES PASCO PACKING CO. v. Chessher) 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

LYKES PASCO PACKING CO. v. Chessher, 33 So. 3d 809, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 5534, 2010 WL 1643231 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) raises three points alleging error. We affirm the first two points without further comment; however, we reverse the third point, concerning the JCC’s failure to identify the specific type of attendant care services to be performed in the awarded eight hours of attendant care.

Competent, substantial evidence supports the JCC’s finding that Claimant is entitled to non-professional attendant care services. From the JCC’s order, however, it cannot be determined how many of the awarded hours of care are devoted to com-pensable tasks and how many, if any, are devoted to non-compensable household duties. Because much of the evidence received at the final hearing related to Claimant’s need for assistance with non-compensable household tasks, such as cleaning, laundry, and yard work, we reverse and remand the JCC’s order for a determination of the types of compensable attendant care services awarded. See Southwood Timber Co. v. Hicks, 959 So.2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (holding that the JCC erred by “failing to set forth the specific type and amount of attendant care services that should be performed in the future”); Rockette v. Space Gateway Support, 877 So.2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (remanding for the JCC to make findings of fact as to number of hours reasonably expended by claimant’s wife for care that went beyond ordinary household duties). In particular, on remand, the JCC should identify the precise services awarded in accordance with the principles announced by this court in Montgomery Ward v. Lovell, 652 So.2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). In all other respects, the JCC’s order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

DAVIS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) raises three points alleging error. We affirm the first two points without further comment; however, we reverse the third point, concerning the JCC’s failure to identify the specific type of attendant care services to be performed in the awarded eight hours of attendant care.

Competent, substantial evidence supports the JCC’s finding that Claimant is entitled to non-professional attendant care services. From the JCC’s order, however, it cannot be determined how many of the awarded hours of care are devoted to com-pensable tasks and how many, if any, are devoted to non-compensable household duties. Because much of the evidence received at the final hearing related to Claimant’s need for assistance with non-compensable household tasks, such as cleaning, laundry, and yard work, we reverse and remand the JCC’s order for a determination of the types of compensable attendant care services awarded. See Southwood Timber Co. v. Hicks, 959 So.2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (holding that the JCC erred by “failing to set forth the specific type and amount of attendant care services that should be performed in the future”); Rockette v. Space Gateway Support, 877 So.2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (remanding for the JCC to make findings of fact as to number of hours reasonably expended by claimant’s wife for care that went beyond ordinary household duties). In particular, on remand, the JCC should identify the precise services awarded in accordance with the principles announced by this court in Montgomery Ward v. Lovell, 652 So.2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). In all other respects, the JCC’s order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

DAVIS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 So. 3d 809, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 5534, 2010 WL 1643231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lykes-pasco-packing-co-v-chessher-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack