MEDICAL COST CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; AND THOMAS F. HAVERTY, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
DOUGHERTY, O'MALLEY & MILLS, P.A., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO DOUGHERTY, O'MALLEY, KEYS, RENFROE & SCHONENBERG, P.A., 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.
Medical Cost Control and Management, Inc. and Thomas F. Haverty sued their former law firm client for unpaid invoices for paralegal and case management services. The trial court granted summary judgment based on a two-year statute of limitations for 'wages,' but the appellate court reversed, holding that factual questions about whether the appellants were employees or independent contractors precluded summary judgment.
The court held that the factual issues regarding whether the appellants were employees or independent contractors precluded summary judgment. The court determined that the legend on the invoice is not determinative of employment status, and that determination depends on all the circumstances of the parties' dealings, not merely the invoice language.
[1] The characterization of compensation as "wages" for the purpose of a statute of limitations is not solely determined by the language used on an invoice.
[2] The determination of whether a party is an employee or an independent contractor, and thus the applicable statute of limitations, depends on the totality of the circumsta…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Not all compensation from employment, however, constitutes 'wages' for the purpose of section 95.11(4)(c).”
Establishes that the statutory definition of 'wages' is narrower than all employment compensation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants provided paralegal and case management services to the appellee law firm on a fee-for-service basis. Each invoice contained the stateme…
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 Construction Of Contracts cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Chief Judge.
The appellants, Medical Cost Control and Management, Inc., and Thomas F. Haverty, challenge a final summary judgment in favor of the appellee, Dougherty, O’Malley & Mills, P.A. We reverse.
The appellants are in the business of providing paralegal and case management services to law firms in personal injury cases. On February 20, 1998, they sued the appellee for unpaid invoices for services rendered. The appellee answered and asserted a number of affirmative defenses, one of which was the statute of limitations. The limitations defense was based on a statement at the end of each invoice which read, “BILL REPRESENTS WAGES AND IS PAYABLE UPON PRESENTATION.” The limitation period for a suit to recover “wages” is two years. § 95.11(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (1997).1 Each of the appellants’ claims had accrued more than two years before the filing of the complaint. The appellants contend that the billings were services rendered as an independent contractor on a fee-for-service basis. Therefore, they contend that this suit is governed by the limitations period applicable to breach of contract, which is four years. See § 95.11(3)(k), Fla. Stat. (1997). The trial court stated that because the appellants “are the drafter[s] of the document, the term ‘wages’ must be strictly construed against them.” The court determined that the suit was one for “wages” and barred by the two-year statute of limitations.
The term “wages” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary 1579 (6th ed.1990) as “[a] compensation given to a hired person for his or her services.” Not all compensation from employment, however, constitutes “wages” for the purpose of section 95.11(4)(c). Broward Builders Exch., Inc. v. Goehring, 231 So. 2d 513 (Fla.1970) (holding that “salary” is not “wages” for the purpose of the statute). Likewise, the legend on the invoice is not determinative of the issue in this case, i.e., whether the appellants provided their services as employees or as independent contractors. The determination of that status does not depend on the statement of the appellants’ invoice but, rather, upon all of the circumstances of the parties’ dealings with each other. Cantor v. Cochran, 184 So. 2d 173 (Fla.1966). The factual issues in regard to this status preclude a summary judgment.
Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT, J., and SCHEB, JOHN M., (Senior) Judge, Concur. . Section 95.11, Florida Statutes (1997), provides in pertinent part:
Actions other than for recovery of real property shall be commenced as follows:
(4) WITHIN TWO YEARS.—
(c) An action to recover wages or overtime or damages or penalties concerning payment of wages and overtime.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cantor v. Robert Cochran & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 184 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1966)
- Broward Builders Exch., Inc. v. Lily Goehring, 231 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1970)