RUCK'S BROTHERS DAIRY AND FLORIDA FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
BOBBY G. HOWARD, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed in part a workers' compensation order awarding TTD benefits, holding that the employer/carrier is entitled to a credit for fringe benefits (housing and utilities) provided to the claimant after the industrial accident date.
An employer/carrier is entitled to a credit for fringe benefits provided to an injured worker after the date of the industrial accident when calculating average weekly wage for TTD benefits.
[1] Fringe benefits provided by an employer after an industrial accident must be credited against TTD wage benefits unless competent, substantial evidence establishes the ben…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant suffered a hernia and epididymitis in an industrial accident on April 5, 1979, and the employer provided free housing and utilities as fringe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fringe Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a compensation order finding claimant’s hernia and epidi-dymitis to be causally related to an industrial accident on April 5, 1979, and awarding claimant TTD benefits, based on an average weekly wage of $208.07. One point raised on appeal merits discussion.
In arriving at a figure for claimant’s average weekly wage, the deputy commissioner properly took into account the value of benefits provided to claimant by his employer such as free housing and utilities. Jess Parrish Memorial Hospital v. Ansell, 390 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). However, it appears from the record that the employer continued to provide claimant with these fringe benefits up until March of 1980. We can find no support in the record for the statement in appellee’s brief that the benefits were actually being provided to claimant’s wife and brother, as compensation for their services, after the date of claimant’s accident. Claimant testified that his wife was not an employee of the dairy. The only reference to claimant’s brother’s work status was that on several occasions he worked for claimant when claimant was physically unable to complete the shift. This does not constitute competent, substantial evidence to establish that the benefits were not being supplied to claimant. Insofar as the compensation order fails to permit the employer/carrier to take a credit for the benefits provided claimant after the date of the accident, it is REVERSED. In all other respects, the order is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
BOOTH, SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Constanzer v. STA Rite & the Travelers Ins. Co., 432 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…hat claimant voluntarily accepted continued payment of group insurance premiums with full knowledge that such acceptance would reduce his otherwise available cash benefits. 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 Compensation, 8 FLW 1318 (Fla. 1st DCA, May 9, 1983…
Authorities Cited
- Jess Parrish Mem'l Hosp. & All Risk Corp. of Fla. v. Ansell, 390 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)