F.W. WOOLWORTH, D/B/A HARVEST HOUSE CAFETERIA, AND TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
ERIC SPANN, 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.
In a workers' compensation case, the court affirmed the award of medical benefits but remanded for recalculation of the hourly rate for the claimant's wife's attendant care to include fringe benefits from her former employment and to consider the market rate cap.
The hourly rate for attendant care provided by the claimant's wife must be calculated to include fringe benefits from her former employment, subject to a cap based on the market rate for such services in the area.
[1] In calculating the hourly rate for attendant care services provided by a family member, fringe benefits earned in the provider's former employment must be considered, sub…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA workers' compensation claimant sought medical benefits including compensation for attendant care provided by his wife. The Judge of Compensation Cla…
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 Workers' Compensation Claim For Medical Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case, the parties bring an appeal and cross-appeal of the Judge of Compensation Claims’ (JCC’s) order awarding medical benefits. We affirm as to each issue raised in the employer/ carrier’s appeal, and affirm all but one of the issues raised by the claimant in his cross-appeal.
Our sole disagreement with the JCC concerns the hourly rate paid to the claimant’s wife for attendant care. Apparently, the JCC calculated the hourly rate without considering fringe benefits the wife earned in her former employment. In City of North Miami v. Towers, 557 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), this court remanded a similar order so that the JCC could make further findings on the hourly value of the wife’s former job by taking into consideration the fringe benefits that she earned in her previous employment. In keeping with Towers, we remand the instant case for the JCC to consider the wife’s fringe benefits. As in Towers, we further instruct the JCC to take evidence and make findings on the market rate for attendant care services in the area, which rate may act as a cap to the wife’s compensation award. Accordingly, the JCC’s order is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
ZEHMER, MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.