In this workers’ compensation appeal, the employer/carrier challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) which awards lawn care, a hot tub, and a dental evaluation. We affirm the award of the hot tub and dental evaluation because competent substantial evidence supports the JCC’s findings regarding the medical necessity of this care. We reverse the award of lawn care services because no evidence established a medical need for Claimant’s yard to remain well-maintained or that there would be adverse medical consequences if the yard is not maintained. See S. Indus. v. Chumney, 613 So.2d 74, 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Absent such a showing, the statute in effect for Claimant’s date of accident expressly prohibits an award of services to assist an injured worker in performing “household duties.” See 440.13(2)(g), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1990) (“[Attendant or custodial care means care usually rendered by trained professional attendants and beyond the scope of household duties.”).
*808AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part.
WOLF, KAHN, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.