Sink v. Bob Bell Roofing, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sink v. Bob Bell Roofing, Inc.

590 So. 2d 504, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12207, 1991 WL 259461

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 3, 1991

DocketNo. 90-3054

StatusPublished

This text of 590 So. 2d 504 (Sink v. Bob Bell Roofing, Inc.) 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

Sink v. Bob Bell Roofing, Inc., 590 So. 2d 504, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12207, 1991 WL 259461 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant/claimant, Samuel Sink, appeals from a final order of compensation awarding attendant-care benefits. The claimant raises two points on appeal: (1) Whether the judge of compensation claims (JCC) erred in limiting the award of attendant-care benefits to 12 weeks at 12 hours per day; and (2) whether the judge of compensation claims erred in awarding attendant-care benefits at minimum wage rather than market rate. We affirm as to issue I without comment, but reverse in regard to issue II. We find that the JCC’s award of attendant-care benefits “at the minimum wage in accordance with F.S. 440.13(2)(e)” was erroneous. The 12-week period for which benefits were awarded occurred prior to October 1,1988, the effective date of the statute relied upon by the JCC. Prior to the 1988 amendment to section 440.13(2), Florida Statutes, case law held that a family member providing custodial care to an injured worker was entitled to reimbursement at the market rate in the community where the claimant lived. See, [505]*505e.g., Southland Corp. v. Anaya, 513 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In the instant case, the JCC did not address a finding of market rate for such services. For that reason, we vacate the rate awarded for attendant care and remand for further proceedings to determine the appropriate reimbursement for attendant care.

ERVIN, WIGGINTON and WOLF, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant/claimant, Samuel Sink, appeals from a final order of compensation awarding attendant-care benefits. The claimant raises two points on appeal: (1) Whether the judge of compensation claims (JCC) erred in limiting the award of attendant-care benefits to 12 weeks at 12 hours per day; and (2) whether the judge of compensation claims erred in awarding attendant-care benefits at minimum wage rather than market rate. We affirm as to issue I without comment, but reverse in regard to issue II. We find that the JCC’s award of attendant-care benefits “at the minimum wage in accordance with F.S. 440.13(2)(e)” was erroneous. The 12-week period for which benefits were awarded occurred prior to October 1,1988, the effective date of the statute relied upon by the JCC. Prior to the 1988 amendment to section 440.13(2), Florida Statutes, case law held that a family member providing custodial care to an injured worker was entitled to reimbursement at the market rate in the community where the claimant lived. See, [505]*505e.g., Southland Corp. v. Anaya, 513 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In the instant case, the JCC did not address a finding of market rate for such services. For that reason, we vacate the rate awarded for attendant care and remand for further proceedings to determine the appropriate reimbursement for attendant care.

ERVIN, WIGGINTON and WOLF, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

590 So. 2d 504, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12207, 1991 WL 259461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sink-v-bob-bell-roofing-inc-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack