May v. Broward Correctional Institution

District Court of Appeal of Florida

May v. Broward Correctional Institution

513 So. 2d 723, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2291, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10430

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 23, 1987

DocketNo. BR-13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 513 So. 2d 723 (May v. Broward Correctional Institution) 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

May v. Broward Correctional Institution, 513 So. 2d 723, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2291, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10430 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

BARFIELD, Judge.

The issue in this appeal of a workers’ compensation order denying a claim for attorney fees under section 440.34(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), is whether attendant care benefits are medical benefits. We find that they are, and reverse the order.

The deputy commissioner rejected the claimant’s theory that her claim for attendant care services, provided for the most part by her daughter, was a claim for “medical benefits only” so as to entitle her to an award of attorney fees under section 440.34(3)(a). The term “medical benefits” is not specifically defined in chapter 440. However, for purposes of determining entitlement to attorney fees under section 440.34(3)(a), “medical benefits” includes the medical services and supplies which the employer must provide under section 440.-13(2), including professional or nonprofessional custodial care under section 440.-13(2)(d). Dalton v. Orange County Sheriff, 503 So.2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Rich International Airways v. Cahvas-quis, 416 So.2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

REVERSED and remanded for further proceedings.

BOOTH and WIGGINTON, JJ„ concur.

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

BARFIELD, Judge.

The issue in this appeal of a workers’ compensation order denying a claim for attorney fees under section 440.34(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), is whether attendant care benefits are medical benefits. We find that they are, and reverse the order.

The deputy commissioner rejected the claimant’s theory that her claim for attendant care services, provided for the most part by her daughter, was a claim for “medical benefits only” so as to entitle her to an award of attorney fees under section 440.34(3)(a). The term “medical benefits” is not specifically defined in chapter 440. However, for purposes of determining entitlement to attorney fees under section 440.34(3)(a), “medical benefits” includes the medical services and supplies which the employer must provide under section 440.-13(2), including professional or nonprofessional custodial care under section 440.-13(2)(d). Dalton v. Orange County Sheriff, 503 So.2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Rich International Airways v. Cahvas-quis, 416 So.2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

REVERSED and remanded for further proceedings.

BOOTH and WIGGINTON, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 So. 2d 723, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2291, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/may-v-broward-correctional-institution-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack