CAROL EATON, APPELLANT,
v.
PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND JOHNS EASTERN COMPANY, INC., APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 2008-11-21
No. 1D07-6299
WOLF, DAVIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
995 So. 2d 1075 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2008)

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.

Synopsis

Carol Eaton, a school teacher, appealed the Judge of Compensation Claims' calculation of her average weekly wage (AWW) in a workers' compensation case. The court agreed that the AWW should be based on wages earned, not wages paid, and reversed the lower court's decision.


Holding

The court held that the AWW must be calculated based on wages earned, not wages paid. Under Florida Statute § 440.14(l)(a), the AWW shall be one-thirteenth of the total amount of wages earned during the 13 weeks preceding the accident, regardless of when payment was received. Therefore, Claimant's AWW was $740.57 per week.


Headnotes

[1] Workers' compensation law requires the average weekly wage to be calculated based on the total amount of wages earned in the thirteen weeks preceding the accident, not th…

[2] A claimant's election to spread wage payments over a longer period does not alter the amount of wages earned for the purpose of calculating the average weekly wage.

Previewing 2 of 4 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

Key Quotes

“the statute plainly and unambiguously provides that the AWW "shall be one-thirteenth of the total amount of wages earned in such employment during the 13 weeks."”

Establishes that the controlling statute requires calculation based on wages earned, not paid

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Claimant Carol Eaton injured her low back on June 11, 2003, while packing boxes of textbooks at her school. For the 2002-2003 school year, she had a w…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, Claimant, Carol Eaton, argues that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) incorrectly calculated her average weekly wage (AWW) based on the amount she was paid instead of the amount she earned. We agree and, therefore, reverse and remand.

Claimant, a school teacher, injured her low back on June 11, 2003, while packing and moving boxes of textbooks. The parties stipulated to the compensability of the injury. For the 2002-2003 school year, Claimant entered into a written contract with the Pinellas County School Board (School Board) for a salary of $31,400.00. Although Claimant’s contract was for ten months, she signed an “option agreement,” which spread payment of her wages over twelve months.

The employer/carrier asserted below that Claimant’s AWW was $599.24, the weekly amount she was paid in the thirteen weeks preceding her workplace accident. Claimant asserted that her AWW was $740.57, the weekly amount she earned in the thirteen weeks preceding her workplace accident. The JCC found that Claimant’s position was similar to that of a seasonal employee whose AWW is calculated on a fifty-two-week average and that using the higher amount would result in Claimant receiving a windfall. The JCC concluded that Claimant’s AWW should be based on the contract with the option agreement; i.e., $599.24 per week, basing the AWW on the amount Claimant was paid rather than the amount she earned. This appeal followed.

We review the JCC’s interpretation and application of the law de novo. See Stubbs v. Bob Dale Constr., 977 So. 2d 718, 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The JCC applied section 440.14(l)(a), Florida Statutes, to calculate Claimant’s AWW. However, the statute plainly and unambiguously provides that the AWW “shall be one-thirteenth of the total amount of wages earned in such employment during the 13 weeks.” § 440.14(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002) (emphasis provided); see also Witzky v. W. Coast Duplicating & Claims Ctr., 503 So. 2d 1327, 1328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (noting that section 440.14(l)(a) speaks in terms of wages earned by the claimant, not the amount of money paid to the claimant). Claimant earned $740.57 per week during the thirteen-week period preceding her accident, regardless of when she chose to receive the money she earned. As such, she is entitled to an AWW calculation based on this amount.

Accordingly, we REVERSE the JCC’s order as to the AWW calculation and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

WOLF, DAVIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw