Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Rambo
This text of 576 So. 2d 394 (Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Rambo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The employer/carrier (E/C) appeal an order determining claimant’s average weekly wage (AWW) and awarding temporary benefits from May 1, 1989, until August 31, 1989. We find that there is competent, substantial evidence supporting the order appealed, which included the following in the calculation of claimant’s AWW: $30.00 per week for the use of a company vehicle; $19.66 per week vacation pay; $8.00 per [395]*395week for “starchips” received by claimant as part of an employer’s award program; and the value of any bonuses claimant received for the last quarter of 1988. We reject the E/C’s contention that claimant was not entitled to temporary benefits for the period claimed because the employer continued to pay the claimant’s salary for that period. The JCC found, correctly, that the money paid claimant was not “salary continuation in lieu of compensation,” but instead, was severance pay. Claimant was contractually entitled to the severance pay, amounting to one month’s salary for every year of service, upon termination of his employment. The right to receive this payment was not related to or dependent in any way upon the existence or nonexistence of a workers’ compensation claim at the time of termination.1 The only requirement for receipt of the payment was claimant’s execution of a release of all claims (excepting workers’ compensation) against the company.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
576 So. 2d 394, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2246, 1991 WL 35444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coca-cola-bottling-co-v-rambo-fladistctapp-1991.