CATO CORPORATION AND THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
DAWN STUART, 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.
The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed a workers' compensation judge's finding that an employee held concurrent employment, holding that concurrent employment cannot be based on mere intention or speculation but must be proven by actual work for multiple employers.
The court reversed the finding of concurrent employment, holding that concurrent employment must be based on more than mere speculation or intention, and the claimant failed to prove she held concurrent employment expected to continue in the future. The average weekly wage must be recalculated based on the 40-hour week with the employer only.
[1] A finding of concurrent employment in workers' compensation cases must be based on more than mere speculation or intention.
[2] A claimant must prove that concurrent employment was expected to continue in the future to establish concurrent employment.
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“A review of the record demonstrates that the judge's finding that the claimant was concurrently employed with the florist shop and with the employer was erroneous. The claimant did not work even one day for both employers.”
Establishes that the factual finding of concurrent employment was unsupported by the evidence
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 began employment with Cato Corporation on July 16, 1993, and suffered a compensable work accident four days later on July 20, 1993. The j…
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 Concurrent Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1376] PER CURIAM.
The employer/carrier seek review of a workers’ compensation order determining the claimant’s average weekly wage. Although the employer/carrier raised three issues in their brief, we find only one issue merits discussion. We reverse the judge of compensation claims’ finding that the claimant held concurrent employment and remand for recalculation of the claimant’s average weekly wage.
The claimant suffered a compensable accident on July 20, 1993 four days after she began her job with the employer. She started receiving workers’ compensation benefits but a dispute arose over the calculation of her average weekly wage. A hearing was held and the judge of compensation claims found that the claimant had intended to work concurrently at her job with the employer and at her previous job with a local florist shop. The judge added sixteen hours to the forty hours per week claimant expected to work for the employer. Thus, claimant’s average weekly wage was computed based on a fifty-six hoxu* week.
A review of the record demonstrates that the judge’s finding that the claimant was concurrently employed with the florist shop and with the employer was erroneous. The claimant did not work even one day for both employers. Moreover, the owner of the florist shop testified that he no longer considered the claimant an employee. As with other past employees, he placed the claimant on his on-call list, a list of experienced people he could call when he was extremely busy.
The only evidence that the claimant held concurrent employment was her testimony that she intended to work both jobs. A finding of concurrent employment must be based on more than mere speculation or intention. See Alpha Rent A Car v. Zollikofer, 399 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The claimant failed to prove that she had held concurrent employment that was expected to continue in the future. Compare Gomez v. Murdoch, 520 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Therefore, we reverse the judge’s finding that the claimant held concurrent employment and remand for recalculation of the average weekly wage based on a forty hour week. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
ERVIN, BOOTH and PADOVANO, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gomez v. Murdoch, 520 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Alpha Rent A CAR & Lynn Underwriters v. Hanns Peter Zollikofer, 399 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)