Jewel Tea Co. v. Florida Indus. Commission, s. 38281

Decision Date25 November 1969
Docket NumberNos. 38281,38282,s. 38281
Citation235 So.2d 289
PartiesJEWEL TEA COMPANY, Inc., Petitioner, v. FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION and Arthur Hoagey, Respondents. Arthur HOAGEY, Petitioner, v. JEWEL TEA COMPANY, Inc., and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Billy L. Rowe of Harrison, Greene, Mann, Davenport, Rowe & Stanton, St. Petersburg, for Jewel Tea Co., petitioner-respondent.

Dewey A. Dye of Dye, Dye, Smith, Cleary & Scott, and W. Robert Mann, of Knowles, Mann & Blalock, Bradenton, for Arthur Hoagey, respondent-petitioner.

Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for Florida Industrial Commission, respondent.

BOYD, Justice.

These consolidated cases are before us on petition for writ of certiorari to the Florida Industrial Commission.

Claimant was injured on October 6, 1961, in a fall from his delivery truck resulting in a severe hernia. An operation, complicated by claimant's diabetic condition and serious infection, was unsuccessful. Three days after the accident the employer advised claimant that his injury was not compensable under Workmen's Compensation. Claimant received approximately $60 per week for 39 weeks following the accident under a package group insurance plan.

On October 15, 1962, claim was filed for compensation benefits and permanent total disability. By check dated November 10, 1962, the employer paid the claimant $747.60 ($42 per week from July 6, 1962, to November 10, 1962). The employer has continued to pay $42 weekly thereafter.

The Judge of Industrial Claims found that claimant suffered temporary total disability from October 6, 1961, the date of the accident, which disability was continuing through the hearing held April 20, 1967. He ordered the employer to pay interest, but not penalties, on the late payment of compensation for the period July 6, 1962, to November 10, 1962; continue to pay claimant $42 per week during the continuance of his present 'total disability'; continue to furnish medical care and treatment and pay $300 attorney's fees to claimant's attorneys. The Judge stated that the fee was not based on the total disability benefits paid.

The Judge of Industrial Claims refused to rule on the group insurance package plan of the employer, holding this matter was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Florida Industrial Commission. The employer contended it was entitled to credit against workmen's compensation liability for hospitalization and medical insurance benefits furnished by Blue Cross-Blue Shield under the package insurance plan in which the employee participated. The employer also contended that it was entitled to credit for disability payments received by the employee under the package plan during the first 39 weeks of his disability. The employee contends that since he contributed a portion of his pay each week to the purchase of these insurance benefits, the employer may not take credit for the purpose of discharging the employer's statutory workmen's compensation responsibility.

The Full Commission affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding in pertinent part as follows:

'We feel that the judge of industrial claims was correct in refusing to assume jurisdiction with reference to the group insurance plan, and the Order in this respect should be affirmed. However, we feel that the judge of industrial claims erred in failing to indicate the type of benefits which the claimant is to receive, whether they are temporary or permanent. The claimant is entitled to know the basis upon which workmen's compensation benefits are being paid. * * * For this reason, we believe that the Order must be vacated and the cause remanded to the judge of industrial claims for a determination of the type of disability to be paid. In addition, the $300 attorney's fee must be vacated and remanded for the judge to consider the award of benefits as a factor in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • City of Hollywood v. Lombardi
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 19 Octubre 2000
    ...claimant is contractually entitled independent of workers' compensation. See Barragan, 545 So.2d at 254 (citing Jewel Tea Co. v. Florida Indus. Comm'n, 235 So.2d 289 (Fla.1969) (group insurance benefits)); Brown v. S.S. Kresge Co., 305 So.2d 191 (Fla.1974) (sick leave benefits); Domutz v. S......
  • Barragan v. City of Miami
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 20 Abril 1989
    ...review denied, 531 So.2d 1354 (Fla.1988); Chancey v. Florida Pub. Utils., 426 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); see Jewel Tea Co. v. Florida Ind. Comm'n, 235 So.2d 289 (Fla.1969). Also, we are not persuaded by the city's argument that its pension fund was an indispensable party. After all, th......
  • Medina v. Miami Dade Cnty.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 15 Julio 2020
    ...are not subject to offset, and the combination of payments may exceed more than 100% of the AWW. See Jewel Tea Co., Inc. v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n , 235 So. 2d 289, 291 (Fla. 1969) (holding that the claimant was entitled to full compensation benefits in addition to any benefits under insurance ......
  • Brown v. S. S. Kresge Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 23 Octubre 1974
    ... ... S. S. KRESGE COMPANY, INC., and the Florida Department of Commerce, Industrial Relations Commission, an ... Jewel Tea Co., Inc. (Fla.1970), 235 So.2d 289, and Chemstrand v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT