Cases

Order of JCC awarded specific handicap-accessible housing and automobile insurance.  Claimant in 2014 filed a Petition for Benefits and sought the payment of rent for a three bedroom apartment instead of a two bedroom apartment that had been provided by the employer/carrier.  The claimant lost on this claim with the JCC finding that the claimant could not explain why he needed an upgraded apartment in excess of that which was being provided by the employer/carrier. The court ruled also that the employer is obligated to provide handicap-accessible housing to the claimant; however, the extent of that obligation requires the employer only to pay the difference in rent between the claimant's apartment at the time of the accident and his handicap-accessible apartment.

Thereafter, another petition was filed by the claimant requesting an increase in the amount of rent that the employer/carrier was paying for an enhanced house over that which was provided by the employer/carrier.  The employer/carrier argued that the initial order was res judicata of this issue and that order had properly determined the amount of housing that was required to be paid by the employer/carrier.  Court determined that the doctrine of res judicata did not preclude the filing of this claim for increased housing since it was determined that the facts or evidence necessary to maintain the second claim was not the same as the initial claim and therefore res judicata did not apply. The employer/carrier has a continuing obligation to provide handicap-accessible housing.  Because the facts in evidence did change since the first order, the JCC correctly rejected the employer/carrier's res judicata defense. 

The employer/carrier also argued that the JCC lacked a basis for entering the housing award as claimed by the claimant.  Appellate court reviewed the JCC's order of one housing alternative over another for an abuse of discretion but reviews a JCC's fact findings justifying an award for competent substantial evidence.

The JCC had determined that the housing as selected by the claimant was awardable because of the employer/carrier's failure to act in determining reasonable housing for the claimant.  The employer's failure to act does not necessarily make the claimant's request for housing a reasonable one and the JCC's order did not make factual findings to support the conclusion that the claimant acted reasonably in choosing housing.  In particular, there was no showing that it was reasonable for the claimant to be awarded a four bedroom house costing more than three times that which was reasonably necessary for the claimant.  Claimant bore the responsibility and burden to make a showing of reasonableness of the housing sought.  Case remanded to JCC to determine whether the housing arrangement sought by the claimant was reasonable and necessary.

On appeal also, the employer took the position that the claimed vehicle insurance awarded to the claimant by the JCC was excessive and included additional costs reflecting business use of the vehicle and a speeding ticket that the claimant might have received.  The employer's obligation to pay for the insurance was not in dispute in this case.  Because the JCC failed to specifically identify facts that would justify an excessive amount for insurance on the claimant's vehicle, order awarding insurance costs reversed.