JACKSON ET AL.
v.
CHARLES F. CONNOR & SONS ET AL.
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.
An injured employee claimed workers' compensation benefits for the loss of sight in his left eye from a work-related injury. The case involves the single issue of the proper statutory basis for calculating the employee's weekly compensation rate under Florida law.
The weekly compensation of $8 per week as fixed by the Circuit Court is affirmed. The proper calculation of weekly compensation is controlled by paragraph (3), Section 440.14, F.S.A., and under that statutory provision, the $8 weekly rate is the correct amount.
“The only point in the case is the correct basis for computing claimant's weekly compensation. It is admitted that it is controlled by paragraph (3), Section 440.14, F.S.A.”
Establishes that the sole legal issue on appeal is the statutory method for calculating weekly workers' compensation benefits.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson was employed by the appellees on an irregular, part-time basis. He suffered an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment that …
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 Worker'S Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
Claimant was employed by appellees at irregular intervals on part time basis and lost the sight of the left eye from an injury arising in the course of his employment. At a hearing before the deputy commission he was awarded compensation at the' rate of $26.40 per week and attorney’s fee of $200. On appeal to the full commission his compensation was fixed at $22 per week and he was awarded counsel’s fee of $200 for services before the commission. On appeal to the Circuit Court the order of the full commission was reversed and the claimant’s compensation was fixed at $8 per week.
The only point in the case is the correct basis for computing claimant’s weekly compensation. It is admitted that it is con trolled by paragraph (3), Section 440.14, F.S.A. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed on authority of Perrin v. Tanner Grocery Co., Fla., 46 So. 2d 886; Continental Casualty Co. v. Lawson, 5 Cir., 64 F. 2d 802; Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Hoage, 66 App.D.C. 154, 85 F. 2d 411; Baltimore & Ohio RR v. Clark, 4 Cir., 59 F. 2d 595; Andrew F. Mahoney Co. v. Marshall, D.C., 46 F. 2d 539.
Affirmed.
SEBRING, C. J., and THOMAS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J. J. Murphy & SON, Inc. v. Gibbs, 137 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1962)…F.S.A. which read then as now, be compensated on a basis of a full time weekly wage of $36.00 (6 days at $6.00) even though similar employees who worked full time received only $22.50 per week. Then in Jackson v. Charles F. Connor & Sons, Fla.1952, 62 So. 2d 26, this court held that a part time employee who had been hired for three or four days work at $8.00 per day, but worked only one day, should be compensated on the basis of a full time weekly wage of $8.00. This court, in affirming the circuit court,…
Authorities Cited
- Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Lawson, 64 F.2d 802 (5th Cir. 1933)
- Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Hoage, 85 F.2d 411 (D.C. Cir. 1936)
- Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Clark, 59 F.2d 595 (4th Cir. 1932)
- Andrew F. Mahony Co. v. Marshall (W.D. Wash. 1931)