Florida Power & Light Co. v. Monks

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Florida Power & Light Co. v. Monks

407 So. 2d 1081, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 18863

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 5, 1982

DocketNo. AB-37

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 407 So. 2d 1081 (Florida Power & Light Co. v. Monks) 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.

Bluebook

Florida Power & Light Co. v. Monks, 407 So. 2d 1081, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 18863 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation action the employer/carrier urges two points on appeal which we agree should be reversed and remanded. As to Point I, we agree with the appellant that the deputy commissioner erroneously included the claimant’s earnings from self-employment as an independent contractor in computing the average weekly wage. See Randell, Inc. v. Chism, 404 So.2d 175, (Fla. 1st DCA, 1981); Jay Livestock Market v. Hill, 247 So.2d 291 (Fla.1971); Parrott v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 190 So.2d 326 (Fla.1966).

Point II requires reversal because the deputy’s inaccurate and inconsistent findings on permanent impairment, apparently stemming from his confusing one medical opinion for another, precluded meaningful appellate review of his legal conclusions. On remand, the deputy should clarify his findings on which an award of temporary partial disability may be based.

The point on cross-appeal is unripe until the findings on permanent impairment are clarified on remand.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN, BOOTH and THOMPSON, 33., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation action the employer/carrier urges two points on appeal which we agree should be reversed and remanded. As to Point I, we agree with the appellant that the deputy commissioner erroneously included the claimant’s earnings from self-employment as an independent contractor in computing the average weekly wage. See Randell, Inc. v. Chism, 404 So.2d 175, (Fla. 1st DCA, 1981); Jay Livestock Market v. Hill, 247 So.2d 291 (Fla.1971); Parrott v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 190 So.2d 326 (Fla.1966).

Point II requires reversal because the deputy’s inaccurate and inconsistent findings on permanent impairment, apparently stemming from his confusing one medical opinion for another, precluded meaningful appellate review of his legal conclusions. On remand, the deputy should clarify his findings on which an award of temporary partial disability may be based.

The point on cross-appeal is unripe until the findings on permanent impairment are clarified on remand.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN, BOOTH and THOMPSON, 33., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

407 So. 2d 1081, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 18863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-power-light-co-v-monks-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack