GIBSON-HOMANS COMPANY AND SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
THEODORE HENDERSON, JR., 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 held that there was no competent substantial evidence to support the deputy commissioner's finding of fifty percent wage loss.
An employee suffered a compensable injury and received benefits. He later worked in a new job but was fired for being undependable. The deputy commiss…
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 Voluntary Limitation Of Income cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The employer and carrier, Gibson-Ho-mans Company and Security Insurance (“E/C”) appeal the deputy commissioner’s order awarding wage loss benefits based upon a finding of fifty percent wage loss. We reverse.
Theodore Henderson, Jr. (“Henderson”) suffered a compensable thumb injury for which he received temporary total disability benefits until he reached maximum medical improvement, then received wage loss benefits until he began working, driving a truck, as a result of the E/C’s efforts to find him a job. Henderson’s job involved transporting bulk materials by truck for which he was paid $10.00 per one-way load or $20.00 for a round trip, with up to four round trips possible in an eight hour shift. Drivers worked a five-day week. Henderson was fired for being undependable, after three weeks in which he worked eleven of fifteen possible work days. The deputy commis sioner found that Henderson had voluntarily limited his income by his being fired, but awarded wage loss benefits equaling one-half of Henderson’s stipulated average weekly wage of $284.57 based upon a finding that Henderson was able to earn only one-half of his average weekly wage.
E/C contend that there is no competent substantial evidence (“CSE”) to support the award. We agree. There is no CSE to support the finding that Henderson was able to earn only one-half of his average weekly wage. The only evidence of Henderson’s earnings is of the eleven days he worked for an average of $45.00 per day or $225.00 for a five-day work week. When this figure is used to calculate Henderson’s wage loss, compared to his stipulated average weekly wage of $284.57, there is a $59.57 difference. This hardly constitutes a loss of fifty percent of wages. We find that Henderson could be awarded, at most, $59.57 based upon his wage loss as shown by the evidence and remand for the deputy commissioner to enter an order awarding $59.57 per week wage loss benefits.
SHIVERS, WENTWORTH and «TOA-NOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gibson-Homans Co. & Sec. Ins. Co. v. Henderson, 433 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…JO ANOS, Judge. Appellants move for clarification of our prior opinion, 428 So. 2d 749. Initially, we note that appellants’ motion is untimely, but due to the importance of clear and correct precedent in workers’ compensation law, we modify our previous opinion by striking the last sentence of the last paragraph. Subject to Section 44…