Court Opinion

ID: 7723548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-30 19:32:55.523885+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:27:14.278816
License: Public Domain

JOANOS, J.,
dissenting.
To me, the case law directs compensation to be paid in this case for twenty-four hour a day “on call” or “surveillance” attendant care provided by claimant’s fiancee, where the judge of compensation claims has found that claimant is in need of such care. See Builders Square v. Drake, 557 So.2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); King Lumber Co. v. Bloomfield, 560 So.2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Collura v. Multi Line Can Company, 598 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).