Case Name: ROAD FILM PRODUCTIONS and Liberty Mutual, Appellants, v. Louise TAYLOR, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Michael R. Jackson, deceased, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-06-02
Citations: 737 So. 2d 562
Docket Number: No. 98-1600
Parties: ROAD FILM PRODUCTIONS and Liberty Mutual, Appellants, v. Louise TAYLOR, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Michael R. Jackson, deceased, Appellee.
Judges: JOANOS, ALLEN and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 737
Pages: 562–563

Head Matter:
ROAD FILM PRODUCTIONS and Liberty Mutual, Appellants, v. Louise TAYLOR, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Michael R. Jackson, deceased, Appellee.
No. 98-1600.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
June 2, 1999.
Rehearing Denied July 2, 1999.
G. Dennis Lynn, Jr., of Holland & Knight, LLP, St. Petersburg, for Appellants.
Byron E. Townsend, of Barr, Williamson, Stolberg, Townsend & Gonzalez, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellants challenge an order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) awarding the claimant, Michael Jackson, permanent total disability (PTD) and attendant care benefits. We affirm the award of PTD benefits without further discussion. 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. We affirm the remaining portion of the attendant care award, but remand the case to JCC to make findings of fact regarding the rate at which such care should be paid. Finally, appellee concedes that the JCC erred in awarding penalties and interest on past attendant care bene fits; therefore, we reverse that award as well. See Williams v. Amax Chemical Corp., 543 So.2d 277, 279-80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
JOANOS, ALLEN and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.