Stahl v. Southeastern X-ray

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stahl v. Southeastern X-ray

427 So. 2d 1089, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18832

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 15, 1983

DocketNo. AM-79

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 427 So. 2d 1089 (Stahl v. Southeastern X-ray) 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

Stahl v. Southeastern X-ray, 427 So. 2d 1089, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18832 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Claimant appeals that portion of the deputy commissioner’s order finding his average weekly wage to be $350. During the hearing, on the question of wages, claimant testified that his weekly salary was $350, but that he also received weekly, $30 as a personal expense allowance; $167 as an allowance toward use of a company vehicle; $50 as allowance for gas; and $10 contributed by the employer toward claimant’s life and health insurance, thus increasing his average weekly salary to $607.

Although during the hearing the employer/carrier argued that the correct average weekly wage was $350, on appeal they concede that the $10 contributed toward claimant’s life and health insurance should have been included. We agree. See Layne Atlantic Co. v. Scott, 415 So.2d 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

However, we also agree with the employer/carrier and with the deputy commissioner that claimant has failed to meet his burden to show that the personal expense, gas and car allowances satisfied his independent personal needs, thereby qualifying as “wages.” Rather, those allowances are more properly construed as “make-whole reimbursement[s] for uniquely work-related expenses ...” Layne, 415 So.2d at 839.

In so holding, we have not overlooked our opinion in Viking Sprinkler Company, et al. v. Thomas, 413 So.2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). As noted in Layne, there “the uniformity and regularity of the expense payments coupled with the employee’s broad discretionary ability in putting the money to use was sufficient evidence from which the deputy could conclude that the allowance was not a bona fide make-whole reimbursement ...” 415 So.2d at 839. No such evidence was introduced by the claimant here.

Accordingly, the deputy’s order is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with instructions to recompute claimant’s average weekly wage to include the $10 contribution to his life and health insurance.

BOOTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

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

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Claimant appeals that portion of the deputy commissioner’s order finding his average weekly wage to be $350. During the hearing, on the question of wages, claimant testified that his weekly salary was $350, but that he also received weekly, $30 as a personal expense allowance; $167 as an allowance toward use of a company vehicle; $50 as allowance for gas; and $10 contributed by the employer toward claimant’s life and health insurance, thus increasing his average weekly salary to $607.

Although during the hearing the employer/carrier argued that the correct average weekly wage was $350, on appeal they concede that the $10 contributed toward claimant’s life and health insurance should have been included. We agree. See Layne Atlantic Co. v. Scott, 415 So.2d 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

However, we also agree with the employer/carrier and with the deputy commissioner that claimant has failed to meet his burden to show that the personal expense, gas and car allowances satisfied his independent personal needs, thereby qualifying as “wages.” Rather, those allowances are more properly construed as “make-whole reimbursement[s] for uniquely work-related expenses ...” Layne, 415 So.2d at 839.

In so holding, we have not overlooked our opinion in Viking Sprinkler Company, et al. v. Thomas, 413 So.2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). As noted in Layne, there “the uniformity and regularity of the expense payments coupled with the employee’s broad discretionary ability in putting the money to use was sufficient evidence from which the deputy could conclude that the allowance was not a bona fide make-whole reimbursement ...” 415 So.2d at 839. No such evidence was introduced by the claimant here.

Accordingly, the deputy’s order is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with instructions to recompute claimant’s average weekly wage to include the $10 contribution to his life and health insurance.

BOOTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

427 So. 2d 1089, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stahl-v-southeastern-x-ray-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack