JOEL STAHL, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHEASTERN X-RAY, AND RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICE, APPELLEES
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 held that a $10 employer contribution to life and health insurance should be included in the average weekly wage, but personal expense, gas, and car allowances are work-related reimbursements and not wages.
The claimant appealed the deputy commissioner's finding of his average weekly wage. The claimant argued that various allowances, in addition to his sa…
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 Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Claimant appeals that portion of the deputy commissioner’s order finding his average weekly wage to be $350. During the hearing, on the question of wages, claimant testified that his weekly salary was $350, but that he also received weekly, $30 as a personal expense allowance; $167 as an allowance toward use of a company vehicle; $50 as allowance for gas; and $10 contributed by the employer toward claimant’s life and health insurance, thus increasing his average weekly salary to $607.
Although during the hearing the employer/carrier argued that the correct average weekly wage was $350, on appeal they concede that the $10 contributed toward claimant’s life and health insurance should have been included. We agree. See Layne Atlantic Co. v. Scott, 415 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
However, we also agree with the employer/carrier and with the deputy commissioner that claimant has failed to meet his burden to show that the personal expense, gas and car allowances satisfied his independent personal needs, thereby qualifying as “wages.” Rather, those allowances are more properly construed as “make-whole reimbursement[s] for uniquely work-related expenses ...” Layne, 415 So. 2d at 839.
In so holding, we have not overlooked our opinion in Viking Sprinkler Company, et al. v. Thomas, 413 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). As noted in Layne, there “the uniformity and regularity of the expense payments coupled with the employee’s broad discretionary ability in putting the money to use was sufficient evidence from which the deputy could conclude that the allowance was not a bona fide make-whole reimbursement ...” 415 So. 2d at 839. No such evidence was introduced by the claimant here.
Accordingly, the deputy’s order is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with instructions to recompute claimant’s average weekly wage to include the $10 contribution to his life and health insurance.
BOOTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Viking Sprinkler Co. & Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Thomas, 413 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Layne Atl. Co. & Wausau Ins. Cos. v. Scott, 415 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)