THE COCA-COLA COMPANY-FOODS DIVISION AND GENERAL ACCIDENT GROUP, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIE LONG, 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.
The court held that the employer/carrier's arguments against the award of attendant care were without merit, and the attorney's fee award was therefore also affirmed.
Claimant, permanently and totally disabled, required attendant care from his wife for six weeks and then six hours daily. The employer/carrier appeale…
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 Attendant Care Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
[*901] MILLS, Judge.
The employer/carrier appeal a workers’ compensation order awarding claimant attendant’s care from 1 March 1977 to 1 March 1978. We affirm.
Claimant is permanently and totally disabled. During the period 1 March 1977 to 1 March 1978, claimant was on crutches, totally without a hip. During this period, claimant’s wife quit her job for six weeks to care for him and, thereafter, continued to care for him six hours daily. She bathed him in bed, changed the bandage on his hip, brought him a urinal and emptied it, helped him dress, drove him, and fed him in bed.
The employer/carrier’s argument that the claim is barred because claimant did not comply with Section 440.13(1), Florida Statutes (1973), is without merit because this defense was not asserted at the hearing on the claim.
Contrary to the employer/carrier’s contention that there is no medical testimony as to claimant’s need for nursing services, there is substantial competent medical and lay testimony that claimant required attendant care.
Lastly, the employer/carrier asserts that the services performed by claimant’s wife were not nursing services and were gratuitously provided by the wife. Not so. The services provided by the wife were compensable services under Section 440.13, Florida Statutes (1973). Pan American World Airlines, Inc. v. Weaver, 226 So. 2d 801 (Fla.1969) and Nezelek v. Terlizzese, 9 FCR 328, IRC Order 2-2869 (1975).
Having affirmed the deputy’s order on the merits, we affirm the attorney’s fee award to claimant’s attorney because the only argument made by the employer/carrier is that because the order was erroneous, the fee was erroneous.
AFFIRMED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walt Disney World Co. v. Harrison, 443 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…f demonstrated need, without regard to whether such services were actually received and paid for by claimant, relying on Khawam v. Collision Clinics International, Inc., 413 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), and Coca-Cola Co. — Foods Division v. Long, 420 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Disney counters that the deputy erred as a matter of law in awarding any benefits because “the claimant cared for herself and actually never used the services.” Rich International Airways v. Cahvasquis, 416 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1st…
-
City OF Miami v. Grenka, 423 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…d that Grenka received a benefit of $200 weekly. Concurrent employment within Section 440.-14(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), was established. The entitlement to nursing services is supported by Dr. Nagaswami’s testimony, Coca-Cola Company v. Long, 420 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). AFFIRMED. ROBERT L. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and McCORD, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- PAN Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Weaver, 226 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1969)