IV. The Enforcement Provision Finally, the E/C argues that the requirement in the JCC's order for it to confirm within fifteen days that the lease transaction had been initiated on behalf of the claimant encroaches on the self-executing nature of workers' compensation law, citing Ramada Inn South Airport v. Lamourex, 578 So.2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We disagree.

This standard has been applied to authorize the furnishing of wheelchair-accessible vans to claimants in numerous cases. See Polk County Board of County Commissioners v. Varnado, 576 So.2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Ramada Inn South Airport v. Lamoureux, 578 So.2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Applegate Drywall Company v. Patrick, 559 So.2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Edgewood Boys' Ranch Foundation v. Robinson, 451 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). In view of appellant's recognized, visible, and undisputed quadriplegia, the undisputed expert medical testimony of appellant's medical needs for a van with a wheelchair lift to restore in part his ambulatory ability, and appellees' having previously furnished appellant with a van with a wheelchair lift, it seems incredible to me and a departure from reality for the Judge of Compensation Claims to deny a van with a wheelchair lift for appellant's use.

We therefore construe the order as awarding 24 hours of attendant care only so long as the nature of McCrea's injury or process of recovery may require, consistent with section 440.13(2)(a). See Amfesco Duramil Div. v. Guzman, 596 So.2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Ramada Inn S. Airport v. Lamoureux, 578 So.2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Turning to McCrea's cross-appeal, we conclude the JCC erred in finding that "stepchild" is synonymous with "child" for the purpose of determining that claimant's stepdaughter, Cynthia McCrea, was a "family member" subject to the 12-hour attendant-care limitation.

The JCC erred, however, in awarding past attendant care benefits for a six-week period in May and June 1995, when Jackson received no attendant care services. See, e.g., Ramada Inn South Airport v. Lamoureux, 578 So.2d 48, 49 (Fla.1st DCA 1991) ("[I]t is improper to order payment for past attendant care based solely upon the claimant's need for care, and without regard to the services actually performed."). Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the attendant care award.

Claimant and his wife each testified that claimant needed such care for only four months following his surgery. Ramada Inn S. Airport v. Lamoureux, 578 So.2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA) (payment for past attendant care must be based upon services actually performed), review denied, 587 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 1991). We therefore direct the JCC on remand to order the employer/carrier to compensate claimant for attendant care provided through May 15 rather than June 15, 1993.

In this workers' compensation case, we reverse the award of attendant care prior to November 22, 1995, because the claimant failed to meet her burden of proving the quantum of such care actually provided during that time period. See Bojangles v. Kuring, 598 So.2d 250, 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Ramada Inn S. Airport v. Lamoureux, 578 So.2d 48, 49 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 587 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 1991). The remainder of the order is affirmed.

The JCC erred in basing his award solely upon the claimant's need for attendant care without regard to the services actually performed by the caregiver. See Ramada Inn South Airport v. Lamoureux, 578 So.2d 48, 49 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 587 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 1991); Orange County Sheriff's Dep't v. Perez, 541 So.2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Perez v. Pennsuco Cement Aggregates, 504 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Although the JCC's order cites competent substantial evidence establishing the claimant's need for care, no mention is made of the hours expended by the husband. In fact, the husband's own testimony indicates that only six hours per day were spent caring for his wife and, when ordinary household tasks were excluded, he only spent three hours per day.