Reese v. Sewell Hardware Co., Inc., AB-71
| Decision Date | 09 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. AB-71,AB-71 |
| Parties | Charles A. REESE, Appellant, v. SEWELL HARDWARE COMPANY, INC., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert R. Johnson of Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, Hazouri & Roth, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Patrick J. Malone of Beisler & Wells, West Palm Beach, for appellees.
Reese, claimant in this worker's compensation action, appeals a deputy commissioner's order which denied his requests for an increase in his compensation rate and for penalties on past due compensation. We reverse on both points.
After paying Reese temporary total disability for a number of months, the carrier began reducing the amount of compensation to reimburse itself for alleged overpayments. This overage had occurred, the carrier stated, because the employer was continuing to pay group insurance premiums on Reese's behalf, resulting in a duplication of benefits.
Reese then filed a request for an increase in his compensation rate, arguing that the insurance premiums should be included in determining the rate. Reese also argued that his vested pension benefits should be included, and he sought appropriate penalties. The deputy correctly determined that both the insurance premiums and the pension benefits should be included in Reese's average weekly wage. On appeal, the carrier does not dispute this finding. However, the deputy concluded that the compensation rate should not be increased by the insurance payments. He also held that no penalties should be assessed.
The ruling on Reese's compensation rate must be reversed because of the mandatory language of Section 440.15(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1977) that "60 percent of the average weekly wages shall be paid to the employee" during the period of temporary total disability. The carrier has not directed us to any authority which would empower a deputy to fashion the remedy ordered in this case.
We must also reverse on the issue of penalties because the record contains no evidence to excuse the carrier's failure to make timely payments at the proper compensation rate. At hearing, the carrier did not dispute its failure to pay appropriate compensation based upon Reese's pension benefits; instead, the carrier's attorney informed the deputy, and now represents to this court, that the pension calculations were so complicated that it required a delay of two years to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Sunland Training Center, AU-71
...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 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Sunland Training Center v. Irving, 384 So.......
-
Mobley v. Winter Park Memorial Hosp., BA-362
...employer allow, at most, the inclusion in the AWW of the premium paid by the employer for such coverage. In Reese v. Sewell Hardware Co., Inc., 407 So.2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the court held, "The deputy correctly determined that both the insurance premiums and the pension benefits shoul......
-
Constanzer v. Sta Rite
...Compare Daoud v. Matz, 73 So.2d 51 (Fla.1954); Rucks Bros. Dairy v. Howard, 410 So.2d 1353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Reese v. Sewell Hardware Co., 407 So.2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); St. Vincent DePaul Society and Insurance Co. of North America v. William J. Smith and The Division of Worker's Com......
-
Wilder v. City of Miami Beach, 1D07-4426.
...average weekly wages. See, e.g., Hillsborough County Sch. Bd. v. Fliter, 539 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Reese v. Sewell Hardware Co., Inc., 407 So.2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Although relied upon here by appellee, these cases do not, by analogy or extension, support the view advanced b......