Narrative Opinion Summary
Samuel Sink appeals a final order of compensation regarding attendant-care benefits. He raises two primary issues: (1) the limitation of attendant-care benefits to 12 weeks at 12 hours per day, and (2) the award of benefits at minimum wage instead of market rate. The court affirms the decision on the first issue but reverses on the second. It finds the judge of compensation claims (JCC) erred by applying a minimum wage rate based on a statute effective after the period for which benefits were awarded (prior to October 1, 1988). Prior legal precedent indicated that family members providing care were entitled to reimbursement at the community's market rate. The JCC failed to consider this market rate in its decision. Consequently, the court vacates the awarded rate for attendant care and remands the case for further proceedings to determine the appropriate reimbursement amount. Judges Ervin, Wiggington, and Wolf concur with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Entitlement to Market Rate Reimbursementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Family members providing care are entitled to reimbursement at the community's market rate, a precedent not considered by the JCC in the original decision, leading to a remand for reconsideration of the appropriate rate.
Reasoning: Prior legal precedent indicated that family members providing care were entitled to reimbursement at the community's market rate.
Limitation of Attendant-Care Benefitssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirms the limitation of attendant-care benefits to 12 weeks at 12 hours per day as determined by the judge of compensation claims.
Reasoning: The court affirms the decision on the first issue.
Reimbursement Rate for Attendant-Care Servicessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court finds that the judge of compensation claims erred in awarding benefits at a minimum wage rate instead of the market rate applicable at the time the services were rendered, which was prior to the statute effective date of October 1, 1988.
Reasoning: It finds the judge of compensation claims (JCC) erred by applying a minimum wage rate based on a statute effective after the period for which benefits were awarded (prior to October 1, 1988).
Remand for Determination of Reimbursement Amountsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court vacates the awarded rate for attendant care and remands the case for further proceedings to ascertain the correct reimbursement amount based on market rates.
Reasoning: Consequently, the court vacates the awarded rate for attendant care and remands the case for further proceedings to determine the appropriate reimbursement amount.