Tampa Bay Area NFL Football, Inc. v. Jarvis, No. 94-3411

• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
• Writing for the Court: An appeal from Order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Kathleen Hudson; ALLEN; DAVIS, J., and SMITH
• Citation: 668 So.2d 217
• Parties: 21 Fla. L. Weekly D265 TAMPA BAY AREA NFL FOOTBALL, INC. d/b/a Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Johns Eastern Co., Appellants, v. Curtis JARVIS, Jr., Appellee.
• Docket Number: No. 94-3411
• Decision Date: 23 January 1996

Page 217

668 So.2d 217 21 Fla. L. Weekly D265 TAMPA BAY AREA NFL FOOTBALL, INC. d/b/a Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Johns Eastern Co., Appellants,
v.
Curtis JARVIS, Jr., Appellee. No. 94-3411. District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District. Jan. 23, 1996.
Rehearing Denied March 5, 1996.

Page 218

An appeal from Order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Kathleen Hudson, Judge.

James N. McConnaughhay of McConnaughhay, Roland, Maida & Cherr, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellants.

Richard A. Sicking, Miami, for Appellee.

ALLEN, Judge.

The employer appeals a workers' compensation order by which it was allowed a time-limited credit for salary payments under the contract of employment. The employer contends that the judge of compensation claims lacked jurisdiction to interpret the employment contract, and that the contract authorizes a dollar-for-dollar credit which is not time-limited. We conclude that the judge had jurisdiction to interpret the contract insofar as it affects an award of workers' compensation benefits, and that the judge properly construed the contract as permitting a credit only against workers' compensation benefits accruing during the term of the contract.

The claimant was a professional football player who sustained a compensable injury during the 1990 football season. He worked for the employer under a standard player contract which was effective for one year ending in February 1991. This contract was governed by a collective bargaining agreement which required the employer to obtain workers' compensation coverage or guarantee equivalent benefits. The employer elected to furnish workers' compensation coverage.

As provided in the player contract, the claimant was paid his full salary during the remainder of the contract year after he was injured, even though the injury rendered him unable to perform his usual employment duties. The claimant thereafter sought workers' compensation benefits, and the employer asserted entitlement to a dollar-for-dollar credit of the post-injury salary payments against all indemnity benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law.

In ruling on the claim for workers' compensation benefits the judge attempted to reconcile the player contract, the collective bargaining agreement, and the pertinent workers' compensation statutes. Although a judge of compensation claims lacks jurisdiction to resolve disputes which encompass only private contractual rights, e.g. Rudolph v. Miami Dolphins, 447 So.2d 284...