PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD and F.A. RICHARDS & ASSOCIATES v. VALERIE ZABIK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD and F.A. RICHARDS & ASSOCIATES, Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D04-2695 v. VALERIE ZABIK, Appellee. ___________________________/ Opinion filed July 18, 2005. An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Timothy M. Basquill, Judge. Aaron S. Bass, of Silver, Levy, Feldman & Bass, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellants. Cord Byrd, of Gonzalez & Porcher, P.A., Lake Worth, for Appellee. BROWNING, J. Employer/Servicing Agent (E/SA) appeal the final order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) awarding Appellee, Valerie Zabik, two hours of attendant-care services a week. Specifically, the award involves assistance in carrying groceries and laundry up the three flights of stairs to her apartment. Given the facts stated in the JCC s order, we conclude that the definition of attendant care in section 440.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2000), construed with section 440.13(2)(a)(b), Florida Statutes (2000), does not encompass the types of services for which attendant care was awarded to Appellee. See Montgomery Ward v. Lovell, 652 So. 2d 509, 511-12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (reversing award of attendant care for household services, but noting that statute facially does not prohibit the performance of household duties by an attendant who is otherwise medically necessary ). Contrary to Appellee s contention at trial and on appeal, we do not construe this statute or the applicable case law as designating a special blanket exception (to the ordinary household duties rule) for claimants who live alone and do not have family members or friends available to provide dependable, convenient assistance with domestic chores when needed. Such quality of life activities and supportive services might well be indemnified under disability compensation benefits rather than attendant care service that is medically necessary, but they are not covered under the attendant-care provision at issue here. See Marlowe v. Dogs Only Grooming, 589 So. 2d 990, 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Appellee misplaces her reliance on certain language in Allied Discount Tires v. Cook, 587 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), -2- which might support affirmance here if Cook had not been decided pursuant to an earlier, different version of section 440.13. REVERSED. KAHN, C.J.; and LEWIS, J., CONCUR. -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
