ALVIN RADNEY, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT D. EDWARDS, 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.
An employer appeals a workers' compensation order awarding benefits to an injured employee. The Florida District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that private employers with fewer than three employees are exempt from mandatory workers' compensation coverage under Florida law, and this classification does not violate equal protection guarantees.
Private employers with fewer than three employees are exempt from the mandatory workers' compensation provisions of Florida law. This statutory classification does not violate constitutional equal protection or due process protections because it is rationally related to the permissible legislative objective of mandating workers' compensation benefits only for employers that significantly impact the industrial marketplace.
[1] Private employers with fewer than three employees are exempted from the mandatory provisions of the workers' compensation law.
[2] A statute distinguishing small employers from larger entities in the context of workers' compensation is not unconstitutional if the classification is reasonably related…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“All private employments in which three or more employees are employed by the same employer.”
The statutory definition of covered employment under Florida workers' compensation law, establishing the three-employee threshold for mandatory coverage.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlvin Radney, an employee of Robert D. Edwards, a private employer with fewer than three employees, was injured and sought workers' compensation benef…
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 Action At Law For Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Employer appeals a workers’ compensation order which determined that claimant is entitled to the payment of compensation benefits. Employer contends that he is exempted from the mandatory provisions of the workers’ compensation law since he is a private employer with less than three employees. We agree, and we reverse the order appealed.
Section 440.02(1)(b)2, Florida Statutes, defines “employment” under the workers’ compensation law as including
All private employments in which three or more employees are employed by the same employer.
Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes, relating to liability for compensation, provides that only employers who are “within the provisions of [Chapter 440] are liable for the payment of compensation.” Since the present case involves a private employer with less than three employees, § 440.10(1) and § 440.02(l)(b)2 establish that claimant is not entitled to the payment of compensation under the workers’ compensation law.
However, the deputy noted that, pursuant to § 440.11(1), Florida Statutes, if a covered employer fails to secure the payment of compensation as required by the workers’ compensation law, an injured worker may maintain an action at law for damages and several traditional common law defenses are statutorily unavailable to the employer. The deputy further noted that if the injured worker elects to proceed under the provisions of the workers’ compensation law, negligence need not be proved. The deputy then reasoned that workers whose private employers have less than three employees were thereby given “an inferior legal status which worked to deny them the equal protection of the law as guaranteed each citizen by both the federal and state constitutions.” The deputy therefore determined that claimant is entitled to receive workers’ compensation benefits even though his private employer has less than three employees.
Contrary to the deputy’s venturous ruling,1 we conclude that the statute effectively excludes private employers with less than three employees from the mandatory provisions of the law, and is not constitutionally infirm in this respect. The legislature could, in our opinion, properly distinguish small employers from larger entities, and such classification can be reasonably related to a permissible legislative objective — mandating the provision of workers’ compensation benefits only as to those entities which significantly impact the industrial marketplace. That classification is not discriminatory, arbitrary, or oppressive; therefore, considerations of equal protection, due process, and access to the courts do not preclude such distinction. See Lasky v. State Farm Insurance Co., 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1974).
In this regard we note that claimant retains his common law legal remedies, and is merely precluded from resort to the legislature’s otherwise-substituted remedy of workers’ compensation.
Accordingly, we reverse the order appealed.
BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . Deputy commissioners are not empowered to declare provisions within the workers’ compensation law to be invalid on constitutional grounds. We address the merits of the issue under the doctrine of primacy of district court review.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fred v. Sasso, 431 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…IV, § 1; Art. I, § 2, Fla. Const. . Art. I, § 21, Fla. Const. . 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). The claimant lacks standing to seek relief under the ADEA. See note 6, infra. . See also Radney v. Edwards, 424 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); John v. GDG Services, Inc., 424 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Noel v. M. Ecker & Co., 422 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Mahoney v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 419 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Acton v. Ft. Lauderdale Hospital,…
-
Strohm v. The HERTZ Corporation/HERTZ Claim Mgmt., 685 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…1st DCA) (upholding 78-week limitation on wage-loss eligibility); Rodri [*41] guez v. Prestress Decking Corp., 611 So. 2d 59, 60-61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (upholding statute limiting receipt of death benefits to certain dependents); Rodney v. Edwards, 424 So. 2d 956, 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (upholding statute excluding private employers with less than three employees from provisions of Florida Workers’ Compensation Act). The statute before us does not abolish any common law right of action identified by appell…
-
Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. De Ayala, 501 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…v. Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund, 427 So. 2d 153 (Fla.1982). Furthermore, deputy commissioners are not empowered to declare provisions within the Workers’ Compensation Act to be invalid on constitutional grounds. Radney v. Edwards, 424 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). See also Sasso v. Ram Property Management, 431 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), aff'd, 452 So. 2d 932 (1984). Accordingly, we affirm that portion of the trial court’s order finding that it had jurisdiction, but reverse the trial…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Washington v. State, 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974)
- Lasky v. State Farm Ins. Co., 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974)