From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baird Mobile Home v. Smith

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jun 6, 1991
579 So. 2d 929 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Opinion

No. 90-2294.

June 6, 1991.

Appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims; Stephen J. Johnson, Judge.

Walter G. Benjamin, Rissman, Weisburg, Barrett Hurt, P.A., Orlando, for appellants.

Bill McCabe, Shepherd, McCabe Cooley, Longwood, for appellee.


Baird Mobile Home and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the employer and carrier, appeal from an order of the judge of compensation claims which awarded attendant-care benefits to the spouse of James Smith, the claimant. The employer/carrier raises three issues on appeal: (1) Whether the JCC erred in determining the hourly rate at which attendant care should be computed; (2) whether the JCC erred in the amount of time per day awarded for attendant care; and (3) whether the JCC erred in awarding interest on past attendant-care benefits. We affirm as to issues I and II in regard to the award of attendant-care benefits. We reverse as to issue III, finding interest on past attendant-care benefits to be unauthorized. Williams v. Amax Chemical Corp., 543 So.2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions to enter a final order consistent with this opinion.

ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Baird Mobile Home v. Smith

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jun 6, 1991
579 So. 2d 929 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
Case details for

Baird Mobile Home v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:BAIRD MOBILE HOME AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., APPELLANTS, v. JAMES…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Jun 6, 1991

Citations

579 So. 2d 929 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Citing Cases

Southern Bell Telephone v. Cordell

Interest cannot be assessed on an award for past attendant care services. Baird Mobile Home v. Smith, 579…

Pan American Airways v. Wagner

The award of prejudgment interest on those benefits is reversed. See Baird Mobile Home v. Smith, 579 So.2d…