SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE, APPELLANT,
v.
HELEN SMITH, 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.
Southern Bell Telephone appeals a workers' compensation award for attendant care and emergency surgery costs. The appellate court reversed the award for eight hours of daily attendant care retroactively to 1994 and the rate determination for such care, but affirmed the decision authorizing emergency surgery as justified under the circumstances.
The claimant failed to provide competent substantial evidence that she actually received eight hours of attendant care each day during the relevant period. The record did not support the market rate determination for attendant care services. However, the emergency condition justifying the claimant's surgery was appropriate and warranted affirmance.
[1] A claimant bears the burden of proving the quantum of attendant care actually received.
[2] An award of attendant care may be reversed and remanded if the claimant fails to provide competent substantial evidence of the amount of care actually received.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is the claimant's burden to prove the quantum of care actually received.”
Establishes the legal standard requiring the injured claimant to provide competent substantial evidence of the actual amount of attendant care received.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHelen Smith, an injured claimant, sought workers' compensation benefits including attendant care and payment for unauthorized emergency surgery. The c…
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 Emergency Medical Treatment cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph, the employer, appeals an order in which the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) awarded attendant care for eight hours a day beginning in June 1994, to be paid at a rate of $7.00 an hour for individual attendants and $12 an hour for attendants employed by agencies. The employer also appeals the portion of the order awarding the payment of medical bills incurred in connection with unauthorized surgery. Because the claimant failed to prove that she actually received eight hours of attendant care every day in the interim from June 1994 through the date of the hearing, and because we cannot discern the record support for the JCC’s decision on the amount such care providers should be paid, we reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
However, we affirm the decision that an emergency existed which justified the claimant obtaining the surgery on an emergency basis. This was an appropriate exercise of the JCC’s discretion, and warrants no further discussion.
We agree with the employer that the claimant failed to carry the burden of providing competent substantial evidence that she actually received eight hours of attendant care each day in the relevant time period. It is the claimant’s burden to prove the quantum of care actually received. See Winn Dixie v. Frank, 21 Fla.
L. Weekly D2052, - So. 2d - [1996 WL 511631] (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 11, 1996).
The record contains some evidence that some professional attendant care was provided on a limited number of days, and some evidence that the claimant’s husband attempted to provide assistance when there were no other attendant care providers to aid the claimant.
However, the record does not contain competent substantial evidence that the claimant actually received attendant care in the amount of eight hours a day throughout the entirety of the relevant period. The claimant testified that she could not say how many hours a day her husband assisted her. The husband testified simply that he did what he could do, in view of his own disabilities (which require that he himself receive eight hours a day of attendant care).
The testimony of the claimant’s treating psychiatrist indicated that the claimant was not receiving attendant care in the relevant time period.
Accordingly we reverse and remand the award of attendant care retroactive to 1994.
We also reverse and remand the portion of the order relating to the market rate for the attendant care services provided from 1994 onward. This decision also appears not to have been based upon competent substantial evidence. The only evidence that appears to relate to the rate charged for such services during the year 1994, for example, was that agencies paid their employees $6.50 an hour and charged the clients $11.00 an hour. Accordingly, we REVERSE IN PART, AFFIRM IN PART, and REMAND FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
BARFIELD, C.J., and BENTON, J., concur.