Palm Beach County School Board v. Zabik

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Palm Beach County School Board v. Zabik

906 So. 2d 362, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10998, 2005 WL 1660795

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 18, 2005

DocketNo. 1D04-2695

StatusPublished

This text of 906 So. 2d 362 (Palm Beach County School Board v. Zabik) 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

Palm Beach County School Board v. Zabik, 906 So. 2d 362, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10998, 2005 WL 1660795 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWNING, J.

Employer/Servicing Agent (E/SA) appeal the final order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) awarding Appel-lee, Valerie Zabik, two hours of attendant-care services a week. Specifically, the award involves assistance in “carrying groceries and laundry up the three flights of stairs to her apartment.” Given the facts stated in the JCC’s order, we conclude that the definition of “attendant care” in section 440.13(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2000), construed with section 440.13(2)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes (2000), does not encompass the types of services for which attendant care.was awarded to Appellee. See Montgomery Ward v. Lovell, 652 So.2d 509, 511-12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (reversing award of attendant care for household services, but noting that statute facially “does not prohibit the performance of household duties by an attendant who is otherwise medically necessary”). Contrary to Appel-lee’s contention at trial and on appeal, we do not construe this statute or the applicable case law as designating a special blanket exception (to the ordinary “household duties” rule) for claimants who live alone and do not have family members or friends available to provide dependable, convenient assistance with domestic chores when needed. Such “quality of life activities” and “supportive services” might well be “indemnified under disability compensation benefits rather than attendant care service that is medically necessary,” but they are not covered under the attendant-care provision at issue here. See Marlowe v. Dogs Only Grooming, 589 So.2d 990, [363]*363994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Appellee misplaces her reliance on certain language in Allied Discount Tires v. Cook, 587 So.2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), which might support affirmance here if Cook had not been decided pursuant to an earlier, different version of section 440.13.

REVERSED.

KAHN, C.J.; and LEWIS, J., concur.

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

BROWNING, J.

Employer/Servicing Agent (E/SA) appeal the final order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) awarding Appel-lee, Valerie Zabik, two hours of attendant-care services a week. Specifically, the award involves assistance in “carrying groceries and laundry up the three flights of stairs to her apartment.” Given the facts stated in the JCC’s order, we conclude that the definition of “attendant care” in section 440.13(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2000), construed with section 440.13(2)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes (2000), does not encompass the types of services for which attendant care.was awarded to Appellee. See Montgomery Ward v. Lovell, 652 So.2d 509, 511-12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (reversing award of attendant care for household services, but noting that statute facially “does not prohibit the performance of household duties by an attendant who is otherwise medically necessary”). Contrary to Appel-lee’s contention at trial and on appeal, we do not construe this statute or the applicable case law as designating a special blanket exception (to the ordinary “household duties” rule) for claimants who live alone and do not have family members or friends available to provide dependable, convenient assistance with domestic chores when needed. Such “quality of life activities” and “supportive services” might well be “indemnified under disability compensation benefits rather than attendant care service that is medically necessary,” but they are not covered under the attendant-care provision at issue here. See Marlowe v. Dogs Only Grooming, 589 So.2d 990, [363]*363994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Appellee misplaces her reliance on certain language in Allied Discount Tires v. Cook, 587 So.2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), which might support affirmance here if Cook had not been decided pursuant to an earlier, different version of section 440.13.

REVERSED.

KAHN, C.J.; and LEWIS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

906 So. 2d 362, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10998, 2005 WL 1660795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palm-beach-county-school-board-v-zabik-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack