- 9 -
the reason why the payments are paid. See Givens v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 1145, 1148, 1152 (1988); Dyer v.
Commissioner, 71 T.C. 560, 562 (1979).
In this case, the payments received by petitioner for
attendant and nursing care services rendered to her husband were
paid under a claim filed by Mr. Baldwin with the Michigan Bureau
of Worker’s Disability Compensation pursuant to the Michigan Act.
The section provides, in part, that:
The employer shall furnish, or cause to be
furnished, to an employee who receives a
personal injury arising out of and in the
course of employment, reasonable medical,
surgical, and hospital services and
medicines, or other attendance or treatment
recognized by the laws of this state as
legal, when they are needed...Attendant or
nursing care shall not be ordered in excess
of 56 hours per week if the care is to be
provided by the employee’s spouse, brother,
sister, child, parent or any combination of
these persons.
This statute requires employers to furnish “reasonable medical”
or “other attendance or treatment” services to a disabled
employee as they are “needed”. In holding that petitioner was
entitled to payment for attendant and nursing care, the Appellate
Commissioner considered the type of particular services rendered
by petitioner, the number of hours of day petitioner provided
those services, and the value of such services. Petitioner’s
services to Mr. Baldwin clearly falls under this statute as
exhibited in the Appellate Commissioner’s order.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011