MR. C'S TV RENTAL v. Murray

MR. C'S TV Rental v. Murray, 559 So. 2d 452 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided: April 12, 1990
Docket: No. 89-02110
Judges: Booth
Citations: 559 So. 2d 4521990 WL 43136

Cited by 20 3 descriptions by later courts

Opinion

559 So.2d 452 (1990)

MR. C's TV RENTAL and Liberty Mutual Insurance, Appellants,

David MURRAY, Appellee.

No. 89-02110.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 12, 1990.

Robert L. Dietz and John C. Bachman of Zimmerman, Shuffield, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A., Orlando, for appellants.

*453 J. David Parrish of Hurt & Parrish, P.A., Orlando, and Bill McCabe of Shepherd, McCabe & Cooley, Longwood, for appellee.

BOOTH, Judge.

This cause is before us on appeal from an order awarding claimant 24-hour-per-day attendant care benefits to be paid for care provided by claimant's wife. We reverse based on Section 440.13(2)(e)2, Florida Statutes (1989). Section 440.13(2)(e)2 provides:

440.13 Medical services and supplies; penalty for violations; limitations.

... .

(2)(e) The value of nonprofessional attendant or custodial care provided by a family member shall be determined as follows:

... .

2. If the family member is employed and elects to leave that employment to provide attendant or custodial care, the per hour value of that care shall be at the per hour value of such family member's former employment, not to exceed the per hour value of such care available in the community at large. In no event shall a family member providing nonprofessional attendant or custodial care pursuant to this paragraph be compensated for more than 12 hours per day. [emphasis added to identify 1989 amendment].

The 1989 amendment, which limits compensation of family members providing nonprofessional attendant or custodial care to not more than 12 hours per day, became effective October 1, 1989, after the entry of the order (July 3, 1989) in this case. Ch. 89-289, §§ 10 and 45, Laws of Fla.

In Williams v. Amax Chemical Corporation, 543 So.2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), this court applied the earlier 1988 amendment of Section 440.13(2)(e)2, Florida Statutes, to benefits awarded prior to, but paid after, the effective date of the amendment, holding:

After October 1, 1988, payment for the wife's services must be governed by section 440.13(2)(e), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988). She may wish to quit her job and receive her present hourly wage to the extent that it does not exceed "the per hour value of such care available in the community at large."

Neither the 1988 nor the 1989 amendment affect claimant's substantive rights. The 1989 amendment limits the number of hours of care for which claimant's wife may be paid but does not affect or in any way limit claimant's right to receive 24-hour-per-day attendant or custodial care shown to be required. Therefore, we hold the amendment applies to attendant care benefits awarded pursuant to the preamendment order where services are both rendered and paid for after the amendment's effective date. Accordingly, the judge of compensation claims' order is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

THOMPSON and MINER, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(holding amendment limiting attendant care by family member to no more than twelve hours per day applied retroactively because claimant's substantive right to receive twenty-four hour per day attendant care was unaffected)

BROADSPIRE, A Crawford etc. v. Jones, 164 So. 3d 708 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)
(the 1988 amendment prescribing the value of the attendant or custodial care provided by a family member does not affect substantive rights)

Kraft Dairy Group v. Cohen, 645 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Cited by 20 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts20

Relies on it most ⓘ

Standard Blasting & Coating v. Hayman597 So. 2d 392 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
Ace Disposal v. Holley668 So. 2d 645 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Paulk v. School Bd. of Palm Beach County615 So. 2d 260 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
Smith v. DRW Realty Services569 So. 2d 462 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
Kraft Dairy Group v. Cohen645 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)
Ramada Inn South Airport v. Lamoureux578 So. 2d 48 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Most recent

BROADSPIRE, A Crawford etc. v. James E. Jones164 So. 3d 708 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)
Walt Disney World Co. v. McCrea754 So. 2d 196 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
Southern Bell Telephone, Inc. v. Cordell693 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
Russell v. PIE NATIONWIDE668 So. 2d 696 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Ace Disposal v. Holley668 So. 2d 645 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Kraft Dairy Group v. Cohen645 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Williams v. Amax Chem. Corp., 543 So. 2d 277 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)	22

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list