Gomez v. Murdoch
| Decision Date | 03 September 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. BQ-391,BQ-391 |
| Citation | 520 So.2d 600,12 Fla. L. Weekly 2132 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2132 Frank GOMEZ and CNA Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Elizabeth MURDOCH, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Karen M. Gilmartin of Adams, Kelley & Kronenberg, Miami, for appellants.
Mark L. Zientz of Williams & Zientz, Coral Gables, for appellee.
Appellant, employer/carrier (e/c), seeks review of a workers' compensation order finding that claimant was concurrently employed when injured. We affirm.
Claimant suffered a compensable accident when she was thrown from a horse, resulting in a 10% permanent physical impairment of the body as a whole.
The employer herein, Frank Gomez, a trainer of thoroughbred race horses, hired claimant about one year before the accident as an exercise rider. In that capacity, she prepared the horses for racing, working 3-5 hours each day, seven days a week.
In addition to her work for Gomez, Claimant also worked at the race tracks. For the two years prior to her injury, it was her practice to work at Calder, then at Gulfstream, and then to take a break during the Hialeah meet. At the race tracks, she worked in publicity, keeping track of the leading trainers and jockeys and functioning as a statistician. Claimant maintained below, and the d/c apparently agreed, that except for the two-month Hialeah break she was routinely engaged in dual employment.
With respect to the thirteen weeks preceding the industrial accident, claimant worked for Gomez during the entire thirteen weeks and for Gulfstream during the first six weeks. During the last seven weeks preceding the accident, claimant worked only for Gomez, as the Hialeah meet was in progress.
If claimant's earnings are computed based on her combined employments, claimant's average weekly wage (aww) would be $296.77, yielding a compensation rate of $187.84. If the Gulfstream employment is excluded, however, claimant's aww would be $200 with a compensation rate of $133.33. Finding that claimant was concurrently employed when injured, the deputy commissioner determined claimant's aww based on her combined employments.
The e/c contend that since claimant had only one job on the date of the accident, the concurrent employment rule embodied in section 440.14, Florida Statutes (1982 Supp.), is inapplicable in the present case, citing American Uniform & Rental Service v. Trainer, 262 So.2d 193 (Fla.1972). We find nothing in the Trainer decision to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowry v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA
...subject to recall, he likely would have been re-employed in that capacity after the injury. See id. Likewise, in Gomez v. Murdoch, 520 So.2d 600, 601 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987), a Florida claimant recovered wages from two positions, even though she was injured while working in only one. The cla......
-
Wal-Mart Stores v. Campbell
...rev. den., Globe Security v. Vegas, 637 So.2d 234 (Fla.1994), as having "reaffirmed the foregoing concepts," and Gomez v. Murdoch, 520 So.2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), for the proposition that "a critical inquiry must be whether the claimant, during the 13-week period, held concurrent employm......
-
Camps v. Garrard Cnty. Fiscal Court, 2013-CA-002039-WC
...a fortuitous circumstance that claimant herein was not actually working at both jobs on the date of the accident." Gomez v. Murdoch, 520 So.2d 600, 601 (Fl.App. 1987). We believe the elements necessary to establish concurrent employment are established by interpreting KRS 342.140 as a whole......
-
Cato Corp. v. Stuart, 97-1261
...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 t......