FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., APPELLANT,
v.
FREDERICK MONKS, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1082] PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation action the employer/carrier urges two points on appeal which we agree should be reversed and remanded. As to Point I, we agree with the appellant that the deputy commissioner erroneously included the claimant’s earnings from self-employment as an independent contractor in computing the average weekly wage. See Randell, Inc. v. Chism, 404 So. 2d 175, (Fla. 1st DCA, 1981); Jay Livestock Market v. Hill, 247 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1971); Parrott v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 190 So. 2d 326 (Fla.1966).
Point II requires reversal because the deputy’s inaccurate and inconsistent findings on permanent impairment, apparently stemming from his confusing one medical opinion for another, precluded meaningful appellate review of his legal conclusions. On remand, the deputy should clarify his findings on which an award of temporary partial disability may be based.
The point on cross-appeal is unripe until the findings on permanent impairment are clarified on remand.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ERVIN, BOOTH and THOMPSON, 33., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Markham Iley & Kemper Grp. v. Linzey, 531 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…nt employment as an electrical subcontractor, a business he operated as a sole proprietorship with two employees. He had not elected coverage under the act pursuant to section 440.05. Citing to the above cases and Florida Power & Light Co. v. Monks, 407 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), this court reversed the deputy commissioner’s ruling and held that claimant’s concurrent employment was not earned as an “employee” covered by the act because sole proprietors are specifically excluded from coverage unless they…
-
Anna Maria Fire Control Dist. & Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Angell, 528 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…Randell, Inc. v. Chism, 404 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (wages earned by a claimant in employment excluded from coverage under the Act are not includable in determining the claimant’s compensation base); accord Florida Power & Light Co. v. Monks, 407 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In the instant case, the conclusion is unavoidable that Angelí is not an “employee” covered by the Act. This is not by virtue of his failure to have worker’s compensation insurance coverage, since such coverage is irrelevant to…
-
Reynolds v. Neisner Bros., Inc., 436 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…ful appellate review, and, as the deputy’s decision regarding Reynolds’ entitlement to PTD benefits was the result of the conflicting findings, we decline to reach the issue of her entitlement to PTD benefits. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Monks, 407 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Rather, we remand for further proceedings, and direct the deputy to clarify his findings, upon which Reynolds’ entitlement to benefits can be determined in accordance with the evidence, including claimant’s age, education and ph…
Authorities Cited
- Randell, Inc. v. Chism, 404 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Parrott v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 190 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1966)
- JAY Livestock Mkt. & Travelers Ins. Co. v. Ellis Hill & the Dep't of Commerce, 247 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1971)