Flowers v. ACOUSTI ENGINEERING COMPANY OF FLORIDA, 1D03-0619.

• Decision Date: 10 December 2004
• Docket Number: No. 1D03-0619.,1D03-0619.
• Citation: 888 So.2d 735
• Parties: James A. FLOWERS, Appellant, v. ACOUSTI ENGINEERING COMPANY OF FLORIDA and Commercial Risk Management, Inc., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

888 So.2d 735

James A. FLOWERS, Appellant, v. ACOUSTI ENGINEERING COMPANY OF FLORIDA and Commercial Risk Management, Inc., Appellees.

No. 1D03-0619.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 10, 2004.

T. Rhett Smith and Teresa E. Liles, of T. Rhett Smith, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant.

Roderic G. Magie, Pensacola, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Reviewing de novo the interpretation of section 440.14(1)(a) & (1)(d), Florida Statutes (1987), which is a question of law, see BellSouth Telecomm, Inc. v. Meeks, 863 So.2d 287, 289 (Fla.2003),

we conclude that the Judge of Compensation Claims correctly construed the statute in using Appellant/Claimant's average weekly wage "at the time of the injury," — i.e., the date of his 1988 industrial accident rather than the 2001 date when he was determined to be permanently, totally disabled — as the proper basis for computing compensation. See James v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 864 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Karnes v. City of Boca Raton, 858 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

AFFIRMED.

BROWNING, LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.