FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. OF NEW YORK (THROUGH UNDERWRITERS ADJUSTING COMPANY), APPELLANTS,
v.
DONALD COOPER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Fidelity & Casualty appeals a worker's compensation order awarding reimbursement for motorcycle modifications necessitated by a claimant's severed left hand. The court affirms, holding that such modifications constitute compensable "other apparatus" under Florida Statutes § 440.13(1) as part of restoring an employee's employable status.
Modifications to a motorcycle required to accommodate an employee's work-related disability constitute "other apparatus" under § 440.13(1), Florida Statutes, and are properly awarded as part of worker's compensation benefits designed to restore the employee to employable status.
[1] Modifications to a vehicle necessitated by a claimant's industrial injury may be awarded as "other apparatus" under Florida Statutes § 440.13(1).
[2] The cost of modifying a vehicle to accommodate a claimant's disability, such as the loss of a hand, can be reimbursed if the vehicle is necessary for transportation to an…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the employer should bear the cost of returning the employee to an employable status”
Establishes the foundational principle for awarding rehabilitative apparatus costs under § 440.13(1)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant's left hand was severed in an industrial accident. To accommodate his disability and restore his ability to commute to work, the claimant…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rehabilitation Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
The employer/carrier appeals a worker’s compensation order which we affirm. The claimant’s left hand was severed in an industrial accident, and he subsequently purchased a motorcycle for transportation to and from work. Because of the loss of the claimant’s left hand, it was necessary that the motorcycle be modified at a cost of $136.95. The claimant paid for such modifications, and the judge of industrial claims ordered the employer/carrier to reimburse the claimant for these costs. We hold that such modifications were properly awarded as “other apparatus” which “the nature of the injury . . . may require . . .” § 440.13(1), Florida Statutes.
Where an industrial injury necessitates the modification or substitution of an automobile in order to accommodate a wheelchair or artificial member and to restore in part a claimant’s former ambulatory ability, such costs may be awarded as “other apparatus” pursuant to § 440.13(1). Walt Disney World v. Morgan, IRC Order 2-3818 (May 22,1979). In Jordan v. Florida Industrial Commission, 183 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1966), the Court stated, in applying § 440.-13(1), that “the employer should bear the cost of returning the employee to an employable status . . .
While a § 440.13(1) award will usually require medical evidence as to necessity, see e. g., Goldsmith v. Buena Vista Construction Co., 304 So. 2d 110 (Fla.1974), in the present case the non-medical evidence clearly establishes that the nature of claimant’s' compensable injury and disability caused his obvious need for modifications to the motorcycle, which was purchased for work-related transportation. Although the claimant is able to drive an automobile without modification, the decision to purchase a motorcycle was properly determined to be dictated by valid and reasonable economic considerations.
We conclude that the present case is controlled by the same considerations as those involved in Walt Disney World v. Morgan, supra, and that the modifications necessitated by the loss of claimant’s left hand are “other apparatus” as that term is used in § 440.13(1). See § 440.49(1), Florida Statutes, for additional provisions governing claims for specific rehabilitation benefits; cf. American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Capps, IRC Order 2-3205 (July 25, 1977); Cover v. TG&Y, 377 So. 2d 792 (Fla.lst DCA 1979); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Vaughn, 381 So .2d 740 (Fla.lst DCA 1980).
The order appealed is accordingly affirmed.
McCORD and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aino's Custom Slip Covers & Nationwide Ins. Co. v. DeLUCIA, 533 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…e). Although such awards are permissible, the claimant’s need must be clearly established. If the claimant’s need is readily apparent, nonmedical evidence may provide adequate support for such an award. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Cooper, 382 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Otherwise, medical evidence as to necessity will ordinarily be required. See United Sheet Metal Co. v. Meyer; Butler v. Lanzo Construction Co.; Edgewood Boys’ Ranch Foundation v. Robinson; Haga v. Clay Hyder Trucking Lines, 397…
-
Temps & Co. Servs. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cremeens, 597 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…e apportionable. By analogy, the AT/PS options are the medical apparatus necessary to permit claimant to drive, and thereby constitute medical apparatus the cost of which should be borne by the e/c. See Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Cooper, 382 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (awarding reasonable and necessary costs of modification of motorcycle following loss of claimant’s hand). We find Ramada Inn South Airport v. Lamoureux, 565 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), factually similar. In that case, it wa…
-
Jackson Manor Nursing Home & Fireman's Fund Ins. v. Ortiz, 606 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…edical evidence may establish a claimant’s need for medically necessary treatment or apparatus under section 440.13(2)(a), so long as such need is readily apparent from nonmedical testimony and evidence. See Fidelty & Casualty Co. of N.Y. v. Cooper, 382 So. 2d 1331, 1332 (Fla. 1st DCA1980) (nonmedical evidence pertaining to the loss of claimant’s left hand showed an obvious need for modifications to his motorcycle). Indeed, we have recognized that although lay testimony cannot be used in lieu of medical eviden…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vaughn, 381 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Jordan v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 183 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1966)
- Cover v. T G & Y & Seaboard Fire & Marine, 377 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Goldsmith v. Buena Vista Constr. Co. & the Indus. Relations Comm'n, 304 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1974)