Case Name: REGAL MARINE INDUSTRIES and Employers Self Insurers Fund, Appellants, v. Thomas CAPPUCCI, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-04-15
Citations: 523 So. 2d 766
Docket Number: No. 87-298
Parties: REGAL MARINE INDUSTRIES and Employers Self Insurers Fund, Appellants, v. Thomas CAPPUCCI, Appellee.
Judges: SHIVERS and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 523
Pages: 766–768

Head Matter:
REGAL MARINE INDUSTRIES and Employers Self Insurers Fund, Appellants, v. Thomas CAPPUCCI, Appellee.
No. 87-298.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
April 15, 1988.
Richard L. Baldy, of Joseph E. Smith, P.A., Orlando, for appellants.
Paul J. Morgan, of Simmerman & Morgan, P.A., Orlando, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The self-insured employer, Regal Marine Industries (Regal), appeals a workers' compensation order awarding the claimant, Thomas Cappucci, temporary partial disability benefits, determining his average weekly wage (AWW), and directing Regal to provide claimant with a nutrition, weight reduction and work hardening program. We reverse.
The deputy commissioner (deputy) directed Regal to furnish the various health programs despite the fact that neither the claim for benefits, application for hearing, notice of hearing, pretrial stipulation, nor the summary of issues discussed at the outset of the final hearing, made any mention of a claim for medical benefits or for nutrition, weight reduction or work hardening programs. Accordingly, the award of such benefits was in error. Sewell Plastics, Inc. v. Jackson, 418 So.2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
The self-insured employer also challenges the deputy's calculation of the claimant's average weekly wage (AWW) with regard to claimant's concurrent employment as a general maintenance man in a mobile home park managed by his father. The only testimony presented on this question was that of claimant's father, who hired and supervised him in the mobile home park employment, but who was not claimant's actual employer. No pay records of the employer or income tax records were produced to establish claimant's earnings in this employment. Instead, claimant's father testified as to his recollection of claimant's hourly wage, starting date and hours worked. Inexplicably, claimant was never questioned as to this matter. Claimant's father acknowledged that he was not certain as to the precise amounts in question, but said, "I believe [claimant's weekly income] was $118 and change." When asked about the total amount paid his son in April, May and June before the accident, he said, "$905.62, I believe the office told me." All of this testimony was objected to as being hearsay and the deputy sustained the objection as to the $905.62 figure. When asked if it would be correct to say he really didn't know how much money his son earned during the period, the father replied, "I can only tell you what the office told me." The testimony of the father as to both the $118 per week and the $905.62 total figure was conflicting hearsay and does not constitute competent substantial evidence in support of the deputy's factual conclusion that the claimant earned $590.00 during the 13 weeks prior to the accident in his mobile home park employment. Paul H. Cowart/Building Specialty v. Cowart, 481 So.2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
There appears to be little reason why the father, as manager of one of the employer's parks, could not obtain company records to accurately determine the compensation paid the claimant. The only documentary evidence adduced was three check stubs, dated after claimant's industrial accident, which purportedly showed amounts paid to claimant for overtime he had accumulated prior to his injury. In addition to being dated after the injury, the stubs do not bear claimant's name or any indication of his rate of pay or the number of hours worked. They also contradict claimant's father's testimony that claimant usually worked 30 hours per week. Their probative value, if any, is minimal. Id. If claimant was able to obtain check stubs for the three overtime payments allegedly reflecting payments after the accident, surely he could have produced some sort of documentary evidence as to his earnings during the 13-week period prior to his accident.
The calculation of AWW is reversed, as is the award of nutrition, weight reduction and work hardening programs, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SHIVERS and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
THOMPSON, J., concurs specially.