Case Name: Ada RHANEY, Appellant, v. DOBBS HOUSE, INC./Squibb Corporation and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-04-05
Citations: 415 So. 2d 1277
Docket Number: No. AC-319
Parties: Ada RHANEY, Appellant, v. DOBBS HOUSE, INC./Squibb Corporation and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellees.
Judges: MILLS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 415
Pages: 1277–1280

Head Matter:
Ada RHANEY, Appellant, v. DOBBS HOUSE, INC./Squibb Corporation and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellees.
No. AC-319.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
April 5, 1982.
On Rehearing June 16, 1982.
Rehearing Denied July 22, 1982.
Richard A. Sadow of Sadow, Lynne & Gonzalez, North Miami, for appellant.
H. George Kagan of Miller, Hodges & Kagan, Miami, for appellees.

Opinion:
THOMPSON, Judge.
The claimant challenges a workers' compensation order, contending that the deputy commissioner (deputy) erred in calculating her average weekly wage (AWW) and improperly made a finding as to permanent impairment. Additionally, claimant challenges the constitutionality of Section 440.-15(3)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1979).
The claimant, a cook for Dobbs House at the Miami International Airport, suffered a compensable injury to her right hand on October 21, 1979. In addition to her hourly wage, Dobbs provided claimant with uniforms valued at $1.59 per week. After a 45-day probationary period which ran from the beginning of employment, Dobbs provided its employees with a parking decal which allowed them to park in the airport lot at no charge to the employees. The parking fee, established by the Dade County Aviation Department, was valued at $1.15 per week. Additionally, Dobbs' employees were provided with a 25 cent meal allowance which permitted them to eat at least $2.00 worth of the posted price of foods in the cafeteria where Dobbs' employees and airport personnel ate.
The claimant argues that the deputy erred in calculating her AWW because he did not include the value of the uniforms or the value of the parking and because he valued the meals at only 25 cents. We agree.
In calculating claimant's AWW, the deputy denied inclusion of aprons furnished claimant, reasoning that aprons are not uniforms. However, the deputy made no mention of the includability of the uniforms furnished claimant by Dobbs. Since claimant clearly requested inclusion of the uniforms in her AWW and submitted evidence as to their value, it was error for the deputy to fail to include the value of the uniforms. Torres v. Eden Roc Hotel, 238 So.2d 639 (Fla.1970).
The deputy also did not include the value of the parking in calculating claimant's AWW. The parking was an economic benefit to claimant and should have been included in her AWW.
Based on the rationale of Bienvenido v. Fontainebleau Hotel, 128 So.2d 1 (Fla.1961), the deputy included the meals in claimant's AWW at a value of 25 cents each, instead of at the $12.50 weekly value requested by claimant. Under the circumstances, any "agreement" between claimant and Dobbs concerning the 25 cent meal allowance is not binding as far as the calculation of her AWW is concerned. The record indicates that the meals cost Dobbs more than the 25 cent meal allowance. Additionally, there is competent substantial evidence that Dobbs knowingly permitted its employees to regularly eat over $2.00 per meal without charge. Accordingly, the deputy erred in including only 25 cents per meal in claimant's AWW. The value of the meals should have been determined in accordance with the Internal Revenue Service Regulations test of the fair market value of the meals. See Spencer v. Chai Convalescent Home, Inc., 9 FCR 214 (1975).
The claimant also argues that the deputy's determination that she did not sustain a permanent impairment was premature and prejudicial to her since she had not yet claimed wage loss or impairment benefits. However, we find that the issue of claimant's permanent impairment was ripe for adjudication and was therefore properly determined by the deputy. The claimant clearly alleged that she had a 5% to 10% permanent impairment of the hand. Furthermore, claimant elicited medical testimony on the issue of her permanent impair ment. Accordingly, the claimant's argument on this point is without merit.
Claimant's remaining argument concerns the constitutionality of the requirement found in Section 440.15(3)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1979) that the AMA Guide be used to determine impairment until such time as a permanent schedule is adopted. However, we find that claimant lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of this section. There is no evidence that claimant is not permanently impaired under the AMA Guide but is permanently impaired under some other standard. Accordingly, claimant has not shown that she has been harmed by this section. Furthermore, claimant failed to elicit testimony from the doctors regarding what standard they used in determining whether claimant was permanently impaired. We therefore do not reach this issue raised by claimant.
In conclusion, that portion of the deputy's order concerning claimant's AWW is reversed and remanded for correction of the AWW in conformity with this opinion.
MILLS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.