VALENCIA JACKSON, APPELLANT,
v.
LANDMARK LEARNING CENTER AND DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT, APPELLEES
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.
Valencia Jackson appealed a workers' compensation order denying her claims for temporary partial wage loss benefits, challenging the calculation of her average weekly wage (AWW). The Florida appellate court reversed in part, holding that the JCC erred by failing to include employer-paid health insurance benefits in the AWW calculation.
The court reversed, holding that there was no valid stipulation regarding the AWW and that the JCC erred by failing to include the weekly health insurance benefit amount of $46.05 in calculating Jackson's compensation rate. The correct AWW was $279.86, not $233.81.
[1] An employer's contributions for health insurance benefits are included in the calculation of an employee's average weekly wage for workers' compensation purposes.
[2] A workers' compensation judge errs in calculating an average weekly wage by failing to include the value of employer-paid health insurance benefits when no valid stipulat…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“In the absence of a stipulation, the JCC erred in his calculation of the AWW and corresponding compensation rate by failing to include the weekly amount that Landmark paid on behalf of Jackson for health insurance benefits.”
Establishes the core holding that health insurance benefits must be included in AWW calculation when no valid stipulation exists
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson suffered a work injury on September 9, 1989, at Landmark Learning Center. The JCC calculated her AWW at $233.81, but evidence showed that afte…
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 Compensation Rate cases and more on FLexlaw
LAWRENCE, Judge.
Claimant Valencia Jackson (Jackson) appeals a workers’ compensation order denying her claims for temporary partial wage loss (TPWL) benefits for certain time periods, for an accident occurring on September 9, 1989. We reverse on one issue, and affirm, without discussion, all other issues raised on appeal.
Jackson argues the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) erred in calculating her average weekly wage (AWW) and corresponding compensation rate. She contends she did not stipulate to an AWW of $233.81 in the pretrial stipulation, and her AWW should be upwardly adjusted to reflect health insurance benefits paid by the employer on her behalf. The E/C contends that the JCC did not err in awarding the lower AWW, as the parties stipulated to that amount. We agree with Jackson.
Review of the pretrial stipulation confirms there is no valid stipulation in place regarding the AWW. In the absence of a stipulation, the JCC erred in his calculation of the AWW and corresponding compensation rate by failing to include the weekly amount that Landmark paid on behalf of Jackson for health insurance benefits. § 440.02(23), Fla. Stat. (1989).1 The carrier’s claims represen tative testified that Jackson’s AWW was adjusted from $233.81 to $279.86 after Jackson was terminated, to account for health insurance benefits of $46.05 per week that the employer had contributed on Jackson’s behalf. Under the statute, then, the correct AWW was $279.86.
Therefore, we AFFIRM in part, and REVERSE and REMAND in part, with instructions that the JCC adjust Jackson’s AWW and compensation rate accordingly.
JOANOS and DAVIS, JJ., concur. . Section 440.02(23) provides in part:
"Wages" means the money rate at which the service rendered is recompensed under the contract of hiring in force at the time of the injury, together with the reasonable value of board, meals, rent, housing, lodging, parking; ... employer contributions for legal, life, health, accident, or disability insurance for the employee or dependents, excluding social security benefits.... In employment in which an employee receives consideration other than cash as a portion of this compensation, the reasonable value of such compensation shall be the actual cost, to the employer. (Emphasis added.)