Flowers v. Acousti Engineering Co. of Florida

888 So. 2d 735, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 18844, 2004 WL 2870001
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 10, 2004·No. No. 1D03-0619·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Reviewing de novo the interpretation of section 440.14(l)(a) & (l)(d), Florida Statutes (1987), which is a question of law, see BellSouth Telecomm, Inc. v. Meeks, 868 So.2d 287, 289 (Fla.2003), we conclude that the Judge of Compensation Claims correctly construed the statute in using Appellant/Claimant’s average weekly wage “at the time of the injury,” — i.e., the date of his 1988 industrial accident rather than the 2001 date when he was determined to be permanently, totally disabled — as the proper basis for computing compensation. See James v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 864 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Karnes v. City of Boca Raton, 858 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

AFFIRMED.

BROWNING, LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

Flowers v. Acousti Engineering Co. of Florida, 888 So. 2d 735, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 18844, 2004 WL 2870001 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

888 So. 2d 735 (Flowers v. Acousti Engineering Co. of Florida) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rotstein v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.
933 So. 2d 1256 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)