dissenting.

To me, the case law directs compensation to be paid in this case for twenty-four hour a day “on call” or “surveillance” attendant care provided by claimant’s fiancee, where the judge of compensation claims has found that claimant is in need of such care. See Builders Square v. Drake, 557 So.2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); King Lumber Co. v. Bloomfield, 560 So.2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Collura v. Multi Line Can Company, 598 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

In the workers’ compensation order under review, the claimant was awarded twenty-four hour per day nonprofessional attendant care. He asserts on appeal that the judge of compensation claims erred, however, in ruling that the claimant’s fiancee could not be compensated for being on call during the eight hours per night in which he slept. In light of the particular facts of this case, including the claimant’s specific needs during his hours of sleep, the judge of compensation claims was justified in finding that the fiancee’s activities during these hours did not go beyond her normal household activities, and therefore did not qualify as compensable nonprofessional attendant care. The order is accordingly affirmed.