FLORIDA HOME HEALTH SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, 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.
Florida Home Health Services' appeal is granted because therapists performing services under written contract were independent contractors, not employees, as mandated by statute and consistent precedent.
Therapists performing services under written contract for a home health agency are independent contractors excluded from employment under Fla. Stat. § 443.036(17)(n)20.
[1] Service performed by a speech therapist, occupational therapist, or physical therapist who is nonsalaried and working pursuant to a written contract with a home health ag…
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 intelligenceTherapists performed services under contract for Florida Home Health Services. The special deputy found them to be independent contractors, but the De…
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 Unemployment Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The undisputed facts as found by the special deputy and adopted by the Department of Labor and Employment Security demonstrated that therapists performing services under contract for the appellant were independent contractors, as determined by the deputy, rather than employees, as held by the department. This conclusion is mandated not only by the specific provisions of section 443.036(17)(n)20., Florida Statutes (Supp.1984),1 see Brooks v. State, 478 So. 2d 1052 (Fla.1985), but by a host of recent decisions, unacceptably ignored by the appellee, which have so held on indistinguishable facts. E.g., F & G Distributors, Inc. v. State, Department of Labor and Employment Security, 478 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); United States Telephone Co. v. State, Department of Labor & Employment Security, 410 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Systematic Distribution Corp. v. State, Department of Labor & Employment Security, 466 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); A Nu Transfer, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Employment Security, 427 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Accordingly, the final order under review is
Reversed.
. Sec. 443.036(17)(n) provides:
(n) Exclusions generally. — The term "employment” does not include:
20. Service performed by a speech therapist, occupational therapist, or physical therapist who is nonsalaried and working pursuant to a written contract with a home health agency as defined in s. 400.462.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kreager v. Glickman, 519 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…ecurity Alarms and Final Judgment and Injunction Thereon.” A review of said order discloses that it is not a final appealable order as it fails to contain the words of finality necessary to sustain a full appeal. See Morffi v. AIU Insurance Company, 479 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). See also Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corporation v. Aerospace Industries, Inc., 254 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). However, since the order grants injunctive relief, it is reviewable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Pr…
-
Amelco Inv. Corp. v. Bryant Elec. Co., 487 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…ferred to county court. Appellant appealed the order on summary judgment and the order amending order on summary judgment. Neither of these orders contains words of finality and therefore they are not appealable orders. Morfi v. AIU Insurance Co., 479 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Guth v. Howard, 362 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Bailey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 218 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); and Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, 99 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). Further, the trial court’s order is not an appeala…
Authorities Cited
- Brooks v. State, 478 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 1985)
- United States Tel. Co. v. State, 410 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- A NU Transfer, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Emp. Sec. Div. of Emp. Sec., 427 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- F & G Distribs., Inc. v. State, 478 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Brimzell L. Griffin v. State, 466 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)