ANTONIO WHITNER, APPELLANT,
v.
BOULEVARD TIRE CENTERS AND SAFECO INSURANCE CO., APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2002-04-04
No. 1D01-1772
WEBSTER and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
812 So. 2d 592 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2002) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Appellant Whitner challenges a workers' compensation ruling that excluded employer-paid dental insurance premiums from his average weekly wage (AWW) computation. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that dental insurance constitutes 'health insurance' under the applicable statute and must be included in AWW calculations.


Holding

Dental insurance premiums must be included in the AWW computation as part of 'health insurance.' The court reversed the compensation order and remanded for recalculation of Whitner's AWW to include the employer's contribution toward dental insurance.


Headnotes

[1] Employer contributions for dental insurance are included in the computation of a claimant's average weekly wage for workers' compensation purposes.

[2] Florida's Insurance Code indicates that health insurance plans can provide dental coverage.

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

Key Quotes

“"Health insurance" plans provide dental coverage, contrary to the JCC's unsupported determination that health and dental insurance should be considered separately.”

Establishes that regulatory provisions in Florida's Insurance Code treat dental coverage as part of health insurance plans, contradicting the lower court's reasoning.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Whitner's employer paid premiums for dental insurance coverage for him. The Judge of Compensation Claims ruled that dental insurance should be exclude…

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.


Opinion of the Court
POLSTON, J.

POLSTON, J.

Appellant Antonio Whitner appeals the final workers’ compensation order ruling that his average weekly wage (“AWW”) computation excludes the premiums paid by his employer for his dental insurance. A claimant’s wages, for purposes of computing his AWW, are defined by section 440.02(27), Florida Statutes (2000) to include “employer contributions for health insurance for the employee or the employee’s dependents.” The Judge of Compensation Claims ruled that dental insurance is a fringe benefit separate from health insurance because they are sold separately with separate costs, and that dental insurance is more similar to disability insurance that is not included within the AWW computation. Appellant argues that “health insurance” includes the stand-alone dental coverage paid for by his employer. Because we agree with Appellant, we reverse.

“Health insurance” is not separately defined within the workers compensation statutes. However, regulatory provisions within Florida’s Insurance Code indicate that “health insurance” plans provide dental coverage, contrary to the JCC’s unsupported determination that health and dental insurance should be considered separately. See § 627.6577, Fla. Stat. (2000)(requiring that “[a]ny employer, group, or organization that pays or contributes to the premium of a group health insurance plan or dental service plan corporation which provides dental coverage only upon the condition that services be rendered by an exclusive list of dentists or groups of dentists shall provide an alternative to enable the insured to have a free choice of dentist.”); § 627.65755, Fla. Stat. (2000)(prohibiting preclusion of coverage by a group health insurance policy for “the safe delivery of necessary dental care” in specified circumstances).

The definition of wages, prior to major revisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act in 1990 and 1993, included various fringe benefits, including disability insurance: “ Wages’ means ... employer contributions for legal, life, health, accident, or disability insurance for the employee or dependents.... ” § 440.02(23), Fla. Stat. (1989). Disability insurance was then specifically excluded from the definition of wages, unlike dental insurance which was not listed separately as a fringe benefit prior to the revisions.1 Because the Legislature did not list dental insurance separately from health insurance along with the other types of coverages available, we decline to treat it separately.

Therefore, we reverse and remand for entry of an order awarding an increase in the Appellant’s AWW to reflect the employer’s contribution toward dental insurance.

WEBSTER and LEWIS, JJ., concur. . Further, we are not persuaded that dental insurance is more akin to disability insurance than health insurance. Disability insurance provides benefits for the loss of income because of a disabling condition. Dental insurance provides benefits for the medical care of the individual.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Campbell v. L & C Constr. & Am. Interstate Ins. Co., 869 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
    …everse and remand for entry of an order awarding appellant the difference between what he received and what he would have received had his compensation rate been based on the AWW determined by the JCC. See generally, Whitner v. Boulevard Tire Ctrs., 812 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Second, appellant sought temporary partial or temporary total disability (TPD or TTD) benefits from June 15, 2001, through the date of the hearing. Although the JCC found that TTD benefits were warranted because appellant’s tr…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw