From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

COX OIL SALES, INC. v. BOETTCHER

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Mar 11, 1982
410 So. 2d 211 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Summary

In Cox Oil and Sales, Inc. v. Boettcher, 410 So.2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), we held that an award to the claimant's wife for past nursing services did not constitute "compensation" upon which penalties could be imposed. Although the instant case involves interest rather than penalties we believe such to be but a distinction without substantive difference.

Summary of this case from Williams v. Amax Chemical Corp.

Opinion

No. AD-131.

February 23, 1982. Rehearing Denied March 11, 1982.

Appeal from the Deputy Commissioner.

Ronald S. Webster of Whittaker, Pyle, Stump Webster, P.A., Orlando, for appellants.

Robert C. Cooper of Cooper Rissman, P.A., Orlando, for appellees.


We find no substantial error in the deputy's order except in the assessment of section 440.20(8) penalties on the late payment of sums awarded to claimant's wife for nursing services. That is not "compensation" within the meaning and application of the statute assessing penalties for the late payment of compensation. Accord, Jessup v. Don's Gulf Service, IRC Order 2-1472 (1965), cert. den., 180 So.2d 463 (Fla. 1965). The question was not raised and addressed in Jones v. Cling Electric, Inc., 397 So.2d 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), which therefore is not contrary to our decision today. On remand the $15 arithmetic error may be corrected.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and LARRY G. SMITH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

COX OIL SALES, INC. v. BOETTCHER

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Mar 11, 1982
410 So. 2d 211 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

In Cox Oil and Sales, Inc. v. Boettcher, 410 So.2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), we held that an award to the claimant's wife for past nursing services did not constitute "compensation" upon which penalties could be imposed. Although the instant case involves interest rather than penalties we believe such to be but a distinction without substantive difference.

Summary of this case from Williams v. Amax Chemical Corp.

In Boettcher, this court held that the payment of nursing services is not "compensation," within the meaning of Section 440.20(8).

Summary of this case from Binimelis v. M.E.F. Intern. Corp.
Case details for

COX OIL SALES, INC. v. BOETTCHER

Case Details

Full title:COX OIL SALES, INC. AND CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO., APPELLANTS, v. JOHN R…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Mar 11, 1982

Citations

410 So. 2d 211 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Amax Chemical Corp.

Section 440.20, Florida Statutes, which provides for interest and penalties is limited to "compensation". In…

Whiskey Creek Country Club v. Rizer

, 1027 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (we review only whether there is CSE in the record to support the order); Orlando…