Smith v. Sunland Training Center, AU-71

Decision Date13 September 1984
Docket NumberNo. AU-71,AU-71
PartiesDell SMITH, Appellant, v. SUNLAND TRAINING CENTER and Division of Risk Management, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Thomas W. Davis of Barton, Cox & Davis, Gainesville, for appellant.

James G. Clayton of Clayton, Johnston, Quincey, Ireland, Felder & Gadd, Gainesville, for appellees.

JOANOS, Judge.

Having considered the appellant claimant's motion for clarification or rehearing, we grant the motion in part and withdraw the decision and opinion filed March 13, 1984, substituting the following decision and opinion in lieu thereof.

The primary issue in this workers' compensation appeal is whether the deputy commissioner erred in failing to include employer contributions to claimant's retirement program in her average weekly wage where the retirement benefits were vested. Resolution of the matter involves determination of a question of law as to whether section 440.14(3) (effective May, 1982) applies to retirement benefits and, if so, whether under the circumstances of this case the deputy correctly determined that employer continues to provide these benefits.

The 62 year old claimant was injured when she slipped and fell at work and as of the entry of the order appealed she was still temporarily totally disabled. She had been working for employer for more than 15 years and it is undisputed that her retirement benefits had vested. After the work related accident, employer made no actual contributions to claimant's retirement account. The deputy determined that section 440.14(3) applies to retirement benefits, and that because claimant continues to be eligible to receive retirement credits for the full period of time during which workers' compensation payments are received pursuant to Fla.Admin.Code Rule 22B2.12, 1 she has lost no benefits as a result of her temporary total disability.

Claimant argues, based on the difference in language used in sections 440.02(12), Fla.Stat. (1981) (defining wages) and 440.14(3), that retirement benefits are not intended to be encompassed in section 440.14(3). In addition, she contends her continuing eligibility for retirement credit under Rule 22B2.12, should she return to work, does not amount to continued provision of the benefit by the employer.

Wages are defined in section 440.02(12) to include "the reasonable value of board, rent, housing, lodging, or similar advantage received from the employer ...." For purposes of determining 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 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Sunland Training Center v. Irving, 384 So.2d 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Ryan, 381 So.2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); and Sunland Training Center v. Thomas, IRC 2-3917 (1979). None of these cases considered the applicability or effect of section 440.14(3), however.

Section 440.14(3) provides:

If, during the period of disability, the employer continues to provide consideration, including board, rent, housing, or lodging, the value of such consideration shall be deducted when calculating the average weekly wage of the employee so long as these benefits continue to be provided. (e.s.)

The underscored language is similar to the language in section 440.02(12), which has been construed to include vested retirement and pension benefits, thus lending support to the argument for inclusion of vested retirement or pension benefits within the scope of consideration under section 440.14(3). In addition, the enumeration of benefits which constitute consideration in section 440.14(3) is not exhaustive as indicated by use of the term "including." We conclude that contributions to vested retirement or pension programs are to be covered by section 440.14(3...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • City of Daytona Beach v. Amsel
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 30, 1991
    ...must be assured." Munroe Regional Medical Center v. Ricker, 489 So.2d 785, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), citing Smith v. Sunland Training Center, 455 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). See also Sunland Training Center v. Irving, 384 So.2d 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Sick leave benefits may be included......
  • Munroe Regional Medical Center v. Ricker
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 13, 1986
    ...vesting of the benefits must be assured. Sunland Training Center v. Irving, 384 So.2d 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Smith v. Sunland Training Center, 455 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We agree with the E/C that social security benefits are not vested property rights in the same sense as vested......
  • Hillsborough County School Bd. v. Fliter, 88-1684
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 17, 1989
    ...440.14(3) in that they can be excluded from AWW to the extent that the e/c continues to provide them. Smith v. Sunland Training Center, 455 So.2d 1088, 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Thus, the question at issue in the instant appeal is whether the e/c are in fact continuing to provide retirement......
  • Brevard County School Bd. v. Patterson, 93-1125
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 11, 1994
    ...John Alpizar, Palm Bay, Bill McCabe of Sheperd, McCabe & Cooley, Longwood, for appellee. PER CURIAM. REVERSED. Smith v. Sunland Training Center, 455 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). BARFIELD, MINER and MICKLE, JJ., ...

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