Scott v. Sears Holding Corporate

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Scott v. Sears Holding Corporate

189 So. 3d 1035, 2016 WL 1460851, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5676

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 2016

DocketNo. 1D15-3787

StatusPublished

This text of 189 So. 3d 1035 (Scott v. Sears Holding Corporate) 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

Scott v. Sears Holding Corporate, 189 So. 3d 1035, 2016 WL 1460851, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5676 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, the claimant challenges (1) the number of hours of attendant care'awarded by the judge of- compensation claims (JCC), and (2) the constitutionality of the section 440.13(2)(b)l., Florida Statutes, which limits payment of nonprofessional attendant care by family members to the federal minimum hourly wage. Both claims are meritless. ‘ With respect to the first' claim, ample competent substantial evidence supports the number of hours of attendant care awarded by the JCC. With respect to the second claim, although article X, section 24 of the Florida Constitution prescribes a minimum hourly wage that exceeds the federal minimum hourly wage, this constitutional provision applies only to “employees” as defined by federal law, and family members providing nonprofessional attendant care do not fall within that definition. See Marin v. Travelers Ins. Co., 771 So.2d 625, 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Accordingly, section 440.13(2)(b)T. does not contravene article X, section 24.

For these reasons, the final order is AFFIRMED.

WOLF, WETHERELL, and KELSEY, 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 claimant challenges (1) the number of hours of attendant care'awarded by the judge of- compensation claims (JCC), and (2) the constitutionality of the section 440.13(2)(b)l., Florida Statutes, which limits payment of nonprofessional attendant care by family members to the federal minimum hourly wage. Both claims are meritless. ‘ With respect to the first' claim, ample competent substantial evidence supports the number of hours of attendant care awarded by the JCC. With respect to the second claim, although article X, section 24 of the Florida Constitution prescribes a minimum hourly wage that exceeds the federal minimum hourly wage, this constitutional provision applies only to “employees” as defined by federal law, and family members providing nonprofessional attendant care do not fall within that definition. See Marin v. Travelers Ins. Co., 771 So.2d 625, 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Accordingly, section 440.13(2)(b)T. does not contravene article X, section 24.

For these reasons, the final order is AFFIRMED.

WOLF, WETHERELL, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 So. 3d 1035, 2016 WL 1460851, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-sears-holding-corporate-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack