An employee was injured on the job and suffered from depression. A Judge of Compensation Claims’ awarded her lawn care services, home renovations, attendant care for a minimum of four hours a day, an evaluation and treatment by a podiatrist, a custom AFO brace and an evaluation for specialized shoes. Her employer contested these awards, but they were all upheld save for the home renovations.

Victoria Rosso worked for AT&T Communications. She was injured in 1989 and hurt her lower back. She had a compensable spinal fusion surgery in 2014, after which she developed a dropped foot. She testified that she has balance problems, falls frequently, and uses a cane.

An employer may be responsible for providing an injured worker with an accessible living environment; this can be for medically necessary equipment such as a ramp or other modifications. Ms. Rosso hired a registered nurse experienced in rehabilitation to assess her home for potential renovations. The nurse, Ms. Litwin, suggested several renovations to her home including ramp access, outdoor motion sensor lights, wider doors, smooth flooring and other kitchen and bathroom modifications. While the Judge of Compensation Claims awarded her all of this, the employer argued that there was not enough competent, substantial evidence (CSE) to abide by her requests. There was no solid evidence from her treating physicians or surgeons that named specific renovations they thought might help her.

The First District Court of Appeals in Florida upheld the award for lawn care because there was evidence that it would improve her depression and anxiety, both of which were compensable. The lawn care services were deemed as a medically necessary component of her treatment and care.

The home care, podiatrist, AFO brace and specialized shoes were also upheld because the employer could not contest their medical necessity. They failed to respond to a written request by an authorized health care provider in a timely manner about these requests and lost their chance to contest.

The Court of Appeals did reverse the home renovation award, because Ms. Litwin was not qualified enough to establish the medical necessity that would justify any or all of the renovations. It did not appear that any of her treating doctors agreed on or approved specific home renovations that were requested.

Read the decision here.