RONALD C. ANELLO, APPELLANT,
v.
FRIENDSHIP VILLAGE CONVALESCENT HOME AND UNDERWRITERS ADJUSTING COMPANY, 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 value of non-cash fringe benefits in workers' compensation cases must be based on the fair market value to the employee, not the employer's cost.
[1] The value of a non-cash fringe benefit in workers' compensation cases must be based on its fair market value to the employee, not its cost to the employer.
[2] The nature of the employer, such as a convalescent home versus a restaurant, does not alter the method for valuing non-cash fringe benefits.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn employee appealed an order determining the value of meals provided as a fringe benefit by his employer. The deputy commissioner valued the meals at…
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 Fair Market Value cases and more on FLexlaw
[Original Opinion at 14 F.L.W. 1347]
SHIVERS, Chief Judge.
The appellant/claimant in this workers’ compensation case, Ronald Anello, appeals an order in which the deputy commissioner determined the value of meals provided as a fringe benefit by the employer. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the deputy commissioner correctly valued the meals at $2.00 per day (both the cost of the meals to the employer and the price charged to the residents of the convalescent home) or whether the meals should have been valued at $4.50 each (their cost on the open market).
This court has consistently held that the value of any non-cash benefit must be based on its fair market value to the employee (the cost the employee would have to pay to obtain the same or similar benefit no longer being furnished by the employer), and not on the cost of the benefit to the employer.1 See, e.g., Mobley v. Winter Park Memorial Hospital, 471 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Fair-Way Restaurant v. Fair, 425 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Rhaney v. Dobbs House, Inc., 415 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The fact that the employer in the instant case was a convalescent home rather than a restaurant does not create a unique situation or require that a different valuation method be used. See Spencer v. Chai Convalescent Home, Inc., IRC Order 2-2768 (1975).
Accordingly, the order is reversed and the matter remanded for recalculation of average weekly wage and corresponding compensation rate in accordance with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SMITH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur. . The accidents in this case occurred on May 1 and October 15, 1986. We note that the accidents occurred prior to the effective date of Ch. 87-330, section 1, Laws of Fla., which changed section 440.02(21), Fla.Stat. in pertinent part to read: "In employment in which an employee receives consideration other them cash as a portion of this compensation, the reasonable value of such compensation shall be the actual cost to the employer."
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Cmty. Health Ctr. & Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Ross, 590 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ive date). Similarly, in calculating claimant’s AWW, the JCC did not err in refusing to apply the 1987 amendment to section 440.02, regarding evaluation of non-cash compensation, to this 1984 accident. Anello v. Friendship Village Convalescent Home, 546 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); and Recon Paving, Inc. v. Cook, 439 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). However, section 631.57(l)(b) prohibits the award of prejudgment interest and penalties on the adjustment of AWW against FIGA, which took over management of t…
-
Sears Commercial Sales & Allstate Ins. Co. v. Retha Davis, 559 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…eexisting statutory language and, for that reason, may not be applied retroactively to the 1986 accident involved in the instant case. City of Clermont v. Rumph, 450 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). See Anello v. Friendship Village Convalescent Home, 546 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).…
Authorities Cited
- Ada Rhaney v. Dobbs House, 415 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Fair-Way Rest. & Aetna Ins. Co. v. Fair, 425 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Shaw v. State, 471 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)