Court Opinion

ID: 9600829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:31:53.877637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:54.030157
License: Public Domain

Judge HUME
specially concurring.
I agree with the result reached by the majority. However, insofar as the majority opinion interprets the decision in Atencio v. Quality Care, Inc., 791 P.2d 7 (Colo.App.1990) to require nursing or attendant care services as an indispensable link to an award of housekeeping services, I disagree with its analysis.
In my view, expenses incurred by an injured employee for housekeeping services are compensable if such services are reasonably needed to cure or relieve the employee from the effects of a compensable industrial injury. See § 8-42-101(l)(a), C.R.S. (1994 Cum.Supp.). Housekeeping expenses may also be recoverable if the service is provided incidentally while providing necessary medical or nursing treatment. See Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. v. Downey, 852 P.2d 1286 (Colo.App.1992).
Here, the evidence is undisputed that the prescribed housekeeping services would not cure or relieve the symptoms caused by the industrial injury. At best, the housekeeping services assisted claimant in avoiding additional aggravation of the symptoms associated with her injury that she might otherwise experience by personally performing such household tasks.
Nor was any evidence presented that the expense of housekeeping service was incidental to the provision of necessary medical or nursing services as was the case in Edward Kraemer & Sons v. Downey, supra.
Hence, since I conclude that the Administrative Law Judge’s findings are unsupported by substantial evidence, I concur in the vacation of the Panel’s order affirming the award of compensation for housekeeping services.