Case Name: FLORIDA CAST STONE and Royal Globe Insurance Co., Appellants, v. Carl W. DEHART, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-09-08
Citations: 418 So. 2d 1271
Docket Number: No. AF-358
Parties: FLORIDA CAST STONE and Royal Globe Insurance Co., Appellants, v. Carl W. DEHART, Appellee.
Judges: ERVIN, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 418
Pages: 1271–1273

Head Matter:
FLORIDA CAST STONE and Royal Globe Insurance Co., Appellants, v. Carl W. DEHART, Appellee.
No. AF-358.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Sept. 8, 1982.
John S. Smith of Marlow, Shofi, Ortmayer, Smith, Connell & Valerius, Tampa, for appellants.
John A. Williamson of Barrs, Williamson & Levens, Tampa, for appellee.

Opinion:
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge.
The deputy's order is supported by law and by substantial competent evidence on each of the five points argued by the carrier's appeal. It' is necessary to discuss only one of those points, by which the carrier contends that the deputy's calculation of claimant's average weekly wage, section 440.14, Florida Statutes (1978 Supp.), resulted in an excessive compensation rate. The deputy fixed that rate at $74.31 per week; the carrier devotes five pages of its brief to argument that we should reverse this finding and fix the compensation rate at $61.94 per week. The amount in controversy, then, is $12.37 per week.
The carrier's argument goes like this: Claimant did not work substantially the whole of 13 weeks immediately before his injury, so the statutory calculation prescribed for such workers is inapplicable. (The deputy agreed.) Because claimant's job was one of a kind and new at that, there was no "similar employee in the same employment" whose wages might be looked to for guidance. (The deputy agreed.) Because claimant was not a seasonal worker, the calculation appropriate for such cases was inapplicable. (The deputy agreed.) So, the carrier argues, the deputy committed reversible error when he determined claimant's average weekly wage by dividing the number five, that being the number of weeks claimant worked continuously just before his injury, into the wages earned and paid during that time; the carrier urges that - the deputy should have divided the number seven, that being the number of weeks claimant did at least some work during the 13 weeks .preceding his injury, into the total wages earned in those seven weeks. In those two additional and more remote weeks claimant worked little and earned comparatively little.
In support of its contention the carrier cites Davidson Lumber Company v. Smith, 390 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), itself citing Imperial Frame Corporation v. Santos, IRC Order 2-3043 (Oct. 13, 1976), cert. den., 345 So.2d 423 (Fla. 1977). But it does not appear that the carrier cited those decisions to the deputy, nor that the carrier urged to the deputy that there is but one calculation suitable for determining the worker's full time weekly wages, section 440.14(4), in cases such as this. See Sunland Hospital/State of Florida v. Garrett, 415 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
At any rate the deputy's task was, as the deputy rightly stated, to determine the full-time weekly wages of the injured employee, section 440.14(4), by applying the statutory guidelines "reasonably and fairly . to the facts proven." Penuel v. Central Crane Service, 232 So.2d 739, 743 (Fla. 1970). In this the deputy was not a cipher or a calculating robot, but was a judge of claimant's unique employment situation. The deputy's order traces his reasoning in commendable detail, and he concluded that "the fairest and most reasonable way to determine the average weekly wage is to add the five weeks during which the Claimant worked continuously, although not full weeks, immediately prior to the accident, and divide by five."
The carrier's argument on the $12.37 issue does not prevail over the deputy's assessment of the evidence. The carrier has neither sustained its position as a matter of law nor demonstrated that the deputy did not "reasonably and fairly" apply the statutory guidelines.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, J., concurs.
SHAW, J., dissents with opinion.