Harvey: Spouse Home-Care Rates Based on Equivalent Provider Costs

The WCAB’s January 7, 2026 decision in Harvey v. SoCal Machine, Inc., No. ADJ17547374, addressed two distinct awards. It changed the rates for medically necessary home care supplied by the worker’s spouse while preserving separate skill categories. It also rescinded the October 16, 2025 Opinion and Award approving the proposed permanent-disability stipulations and returned disputed adjustment and attorney-fee calculations to the trial level.

Two awards required different dispositions

The worker sustained a neck injury while employed as an operations manager. An October 2024 findings and award set rates for the spouse’s ordinary caregiving and nursing-level services. A petition challenging that award remained under reconsideration when the parties later submitted stipulations addressing permanent total disability and future medical care. Those stipulations expressly left the home-care issues unresolved. Harvey, slip op. at 1–3.

The Board approved the stipulations in October 2025. The worker then challenged the commencement of statutory annual benefit adjustments and the calculation and commutation of attorney’s fees. The January decision therefore had to identify which earlier award it was rescinding and which it was amending; it did not replace both with a single undifferentiated award. Id., slip op. at 3–5, 10–12.

The panel preserved two levels of care

The record established substantial daily assistance needs and described both ordinary caregiving and nursing-level tasks. The trial judge had assigned different rates to those categories. The Board found no sufficiently substantial contrary evidence to disturb that classification: A need for assistance across the day did not mean every hour rose to nursing-level care. Id., slip op. at 5–6, 8–9.

This distinction limits the decision’s reach. It does not classify all family-provided care as skilled nursing, make every household task compensable, or establish that a spouse may bill for time when someone else is providing the service. Medical necessity, appropriate qualifications, actual services and evidence of their value remain separate components of the record.

Equivalent replacement cost supported higher rates

The principal change concerned the measure used to value each category. The panel concluded that the appropriate metric on this record was what the employer would pay for equivalent services from a third-party provider, rather than simply the wages an agency pays its employees. Provider billing and unrebutted testimony supported that comparison. Id., slip op. at 7–9.

The Board amended the award to $38 per hour for ordinary caregiver services and $80 per hour for nursing-equivalent duties. Those were evidence-supported amounts in this case, not a statewide fee schedule, guaranteed minimum, or rate automatically available to another family. The panel’s reasoning depended on established medical need, a qualified and appropriate spouse-provider, and proof of the relevant market costs. Id., slip op. at 9, 11–12.

The practical distinction is between proving a comparable service’s customer cost and choosing a rate merely because it appears in a wage advertisement. A different record, applicable fee schedule, service mix or provider qualification can require a different analysis. Our agency-charge and caregiver-wage comparison guide explains that narrower evidence task.

Settlement calculations and home-care fees remained open

The Board rescinded the October 16, 2025 Opinion and Award approving the proposed stipulations because the claimed annual-adjustment commencement and attorney-fee calculation issues warranted trial-level review. It invited amended stipulations and further proceedings. It did not decide the correct annual-adjustment start date or provide a generally applicable commutation calculation. Id., slip op. at 4–5, 10–11.

The separate attorney’s fee for the home-care recovery was also deferred. That fee concerned the retroactive home-care recovery; it was distinct from the attorney-fee calculation in the permanent-disability stipulations. Although the opinion discussed the worker’s requested percentage and the trial judge’s observations, the operative amendment did not award a new percentage. Reading those discussions as a final fee award would overstate the disposition. Id., slip op. at 9–12.

Read the operative order and its limits

The final order granted reconsideration, rescinded the October 2025 approval, and returned that matter to the trial level. It otherwise affirmed the October 2024 findings and award as amended for the two reimbursement rates and deferred home-care attorney’s fees. Those are distinct procedural results. Id., slip op. at 11–12.

This is a WCAB panel decision, citable for persuasive reasoning and not binding en banc precedent. The opinion contains inconsistent recitals of some petition and adjustment dates; this analysis does not invent a reconciliation or derive an adjustment deadline from them. It addresses the January 7 ruling, without claiming a comprehensive later-treatment search or a later final award. For another claim, compare the actual medical, service, rate and award records through our California workers’ compensation practice.