Workers’
compensation — Attendant care — Number of hours of attendant care awarded was
supported by competent substantial evidence — Statute limiting payment of
nonprofessional attendant care by family members to federal minimum hourly wage
is not unconstitutional — Although Florida Constitution prescribes minimum
hourly wage that exceeds federal minimum hourly wage, this provision applies
only to “employees” as defined by federal law, and not to nonprofessional
family members providing attendant care

BONNIE J. SCOTT, Appellant, v. SEARS HOLDING CORPORATE AND
SEDGWICK CLAIMS, AS SERVICING AGENT FOR AIG, Appellees. 1st District. Case No.
1D15-3787. Opinion filed April 14, 2016. An appeal from an order of the Judge
of Compensation Claims. Robert D. McAliley, Judge. Date of Accident: October
23, 1999. Counsel: Mark L. Zientz of the Law Offices of Mark L. Zientz, P.A.,
Miami, and Michael K. Horowitz of Matheson, Horowitz & Devonmille, Vero
Beach, for Appellant. Mary Frances Nelson of Eraclides, Gelman, Hall, Indek,
Goodman & Waters, Ft Myers, for Appellees.

(PER CURIAM.) In this workers’ compensation appeal, the
claimant challenges (1) the number of hours of attendant care awarded by the
judge of compensation claims (JCC), and (2) the constitutionality of the
section 440.13(2)(b)1., Florida Statutes, which limits payment of
nonprofessional attendant care by family members to the federal minimum hourly
wage. Both claims are meritless. With respect to the first claim, ample
competent substantial evidence supports the number of hours of attendant care
awarded by the JCC. With respect to the second claim, although article X,
section 24 of the Florida Constitution prescribes a minimum hourly wage that
exceeds the federal minimum hourly wage, this constitutional provision applies
only to “employees” as defined by federal law, and family members providing
nonprofessional attendant care do not fall within that definition. See Marin
v. Travelers Ins. Co., 771 So. 2d 625, 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Accordingly,
section 440.13(2)(b)1. does not contravene article X, section 24.

For these reasons, the final order is AFFIRMED. (WOLF,
WETHERELL, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.)

* *
*