GREATER FLORIDA OUTDOOR ADVERTISING AND EXECUTIVE RISK CONSULTANTS, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
THOMAS S. DICHRISTINA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this workers' compensation case, the First District Court of Appeal reversed a judge's determination of the claimant's average weekly wage, holding that future salary increases that were not retroactively effective at the time of injury should not be included in the wage calculation under Florida Statute § 440.14(1)(d).
The claimant's average weekly wage should have been based on the $200 per week salary the claimant was earning at the time of injury, not the later $350 salary. Future raises that are not retroactively effective and lack necessary approvals at the time of injury should not be included in the average weekly wage calculation.
[1] An increase in a claimant's earnings after the time of injury should not be included in the determination of the claimant's average weekly wage under section 440.14(1)(d)…
[2] The average weekly wage determination under section 440.14(1)(d), Florida Statutes, may be based on a claimant's actual earnings or the contract of employment.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Section 440.14(1), Florida Statutes, contains a general reference to wages "at the time of the injury," and section 440.14(l)(d) contemplates the prospective assessment of such full-time weekly wages.”
Establishes the statutory framework requiring reference to wages at the time of injury for average weekly wage calculations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant was injured shortly after beginning employment with Greater Florida Outdoor Advertising at an initial salary of $200 per week. The partie…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Average Weekly Wage Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, Judge.
The employer/carrier appeal, and the claimant cross-appeals, a workers’ compensation order establishing the claimant’s av erage weekly wage and awarding various benefits. We find that the claimant’s average weekly wage, as determined under section 440.14(l)(d), Florida Statutes, should not have included an increase in the claimant’s earnings after the time of the injury,
Section 440.14(1), Florida Statutes, contains a general reference to wages “at the time of the injury,” and section 440.14(l)(d) contemplates the prospective assessment of such full-time weekly wages. See Bruck v. Glen Johnson, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Simpkins v. Watson, 397 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The average weekly wage determination under section 440.14(l)(d) may be based on the claimant’s actual earnings or the contract of employment. See Penuel v. Central Crane Service, 232 So. 2d 739 (Fla.1970). The pertinent figure for a contracted salary is the amount which the claimant is legally entitled to earn. See Adart South Polybag Mfg. Inc. v. Goldberg, 495 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). This amount might encompass a future raise which is retroactively effective at the time of the injury. See Tampa Elec. Co. v. Bradshaw, 477 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
The claimant was injured shortly after he began working for the employer under an arrangement by which he was paid an initial salary of $200 per week. Instead of using this figure in determining the claimant’s average weekly wage, the judge used an increased salary of $350 per week which the claimant later earned in the employment. The future increase was contemplated at the time the employment commenced as it was agreed that the claimant would eventually be paid this amount, subject to approval by the employer’s board of directors. But the increase was not retroactively effective, and the necessary approval was not obtained until after the claimant was injured. The average weekly wage determination under section 440.-14(l)(d) should therefore have been based on the salary of $200 per week which the claimant was earning at the time of the injury.
The appealed order is reversed insofar as it establishes an average weekly wage based on a salary of $350 per week rather than $200 per week, and awards benefits thereon. The order is otherwise affirmed, and the cause is remanded.
SMITH, J. and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. Hochadel Roofing Co. & Claims Ctr., 657 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…ort the determination of the JCC that claimant did not have a contract for hire entitling him to forty hours a week of work or pay, including the testimony of both Mr. Jackson and his employer. See Greater Florida Outdoor Advertising v. Dichristina, 591 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (“The pertinent figure for a contracted salary is the amount which the claimant is legally entitled to earn.”). When there is no contractual provision governing the number of hours the claimant will work per week, the JCC must ca…
-
Benny L. Waldorf v. Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Gallagher Bassett Servs., 622 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…ovides that a worker’s AWW can be computed based on either his or her actual earnings at the time of injury or the contract of employment. See Penuel v. Central Crane Serv., 232 So. 2d 739 (Fla.1970); Greater Fla. Outdoor Advertising v. Dichristina, 591 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Adart S. Polybag Mfg., Inc. v. Goldberg, 495 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Newell v. Seaboard Contractors, 473 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In the case at bar, claimant’s contract of employment did not require that he be pa…
-
Mauranssi v. Centerline Utils. Contract Co. & Claims Ctr., 685 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…. 2d 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). A prospective determination of average weekly wage under subsection (l)(d) “might encompass a future raise which is retroactively effective at the time of the injury.” Greater Florida Outdoor Advertising v. Dichristina, 591 So. 2d 1090, 1091 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)(citing Tampa Elec. Co. v. Bradshaiv, 477 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)). Here appellant had already received a raise when he was injured. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the judge of compensation c…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bruck v. Glen Johnson, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Tampa Elec. Co. v. Bradshaw, 477 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Watson v. McCABE, 232 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 1970)
- Adart S. Polybag MFG., Inc. v. Goldberg, 495 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Penuel v. Cent. Crane Serv., 232 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 1970)
- Simpkins v. Tally Watson & Fla. Farm Bureau, 397 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)