Buckhalter v. University of Florida, ZZ-418
| Decision Date | 16 February 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. ZZ-418,ZZ-418 |
| Citation | 411 So.2d 1327 |
| Parties | William C. BUCKHALTER, Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA and Division of Risk Management, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Thomas W. Davis, Barton, Cox & Davis, Gainesville, for appellant.
Jack A. Langdon, Jones & Langdon, Gainesville, for appellees.
Buckhalter, the claimant in this workers' compensation case, raises many issues on appeal, several of which deal with the alleged failure of the deputy commissioner to decide issues which were properly brought before him and ripe for adjudication. 1
The first question concerns the failure to find claimant's average weekly wage when the amount was clearly in controversy. At the hearing, claimant asserted a minor discrepancy between his base average weekly wage of $145.36 and the $145.20 amount accepted by the employer/carrier. In addition, claimant asserted that he was entitled to have the value of retirement benefits paid by the employer included in his average weekly wage, as well as the value of uniforms and laundry service provided. While the employer/carrier concedes that $145.36 is the correct base amount, it contests the inclusion of the other benefits, arguing that the retirement contributions have no present day value and that no evidence was presented establishing the value of the uniform allowance.
We agree with the claimant that because his retirement benefits had vested he was entitled to have the value of those contributions considered in determining his average weekly wage. Reese v. Sewell Hardware Co., 407 So.2d 965, 6 F.L.W. 2557 (Fla. 1st DCA, Case No. AB-71, Dec. 9, 1981); Sunland v. Thomas, IRC Order 2-3917 (1979), cert. denied, 389 So.2d 1113 (Fla.1980). However, the employer/carrier correctly states that no evidence of the value of the uniform service was presented to the deputy commissioner other than claimant's testimony that he was in fact provided a clean uniform every few days. The deputy commissioner should have determined the claimant's average weekly wage, including a value for the retirement contributions, but the record does not compel an increase in the amount of average weekly wage based on uniforms provided, absent any indication of value.
Claimant also argues that the deputy commissioner failed to rule on his claim for temporary partial and/or temporary total disability benefits. Again, this claim was properly presented to the deputy commissioner, but according to the employer/carrier the order sufficiently disposes of the issue. The decretal portion of the order does not refer to the claim for temporary benefits, but simply states that the claim for additional benefits is denied. There was evidence presented in support of the contention that claimant was terminated from his employment because his injury made him unable to perform his duties. In addition, the record reflects a time lapse between the date of termination and the date that he reached maximum medical improvement. Because of the omission of any findings on the issue we are unable to determine whether the order rejects such evidence or whether the deputy overlooked an issue before him. Therefore, on remand the deputy commissioner should expressly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Betancourt v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
...the doctrine of res judicata barred the subsequent claim for mileage. Claimant additionally refers to Buckhalter v. University of Florida, 411 So.2d 1327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), for the same principle of law. There the JCC failed to address several issues in the order that were properly before......
-
Smith v. Sunland Training Center, AU-71
...average weekly wage, wages have been construed to include vested pension or retirement benefits, see Buckhalter v. University of Florida, 411 So.2d 1327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), and Reese v. Sewell Hardware Co., 407 So.2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). See also City of Tampa v. Bartley, 413 So.2d 128......
-
Famous Amos v. Weil, 93-3501
...and REMAND with instructions that the JCC address and adjudicate appellants' Martin v. Carpenter 1 defense. Buckhalter v. University of Florida, 411 So.2d 1327 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 418 So.2d 1278 (Fla.1982); Westberry v. Copeland Sausage Co., 389 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Dunn......
-
Hillsborough County School Bd. v. Fliter, 88-1684
...and retirement benefits are within the statutory definition of "wages." § 440.02(21), Fla.Stat., (1987); Buckhalter v. University of Florida, 411 So.2d 1327 (Fla. 1st DCA), pet. rev. denied, 418 So.2d 1278 (Fla.1982). These benefits are also within the scope of section 440.14(3) in that the......