From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State, DHRS v. Ryan

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Mar 27, 1980
381 So. 2d 269 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

Opinion

No. PP-312.

February 21, 1980. Rehearing Denied March 27, 1980.

Walter E. Beisler, West Palm Beach, of Anthony J. Beisler, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant/cross-appellee.

Micheal A. Edwards of Law Office of Charles L. Rowe, West Palm Beach, for appellee/cross-appellant.


The order of the deputy commissioner is affirmed except with regard to the computation of average weekly wage. The deputy incorrectly included in his formula the state's contribution to a retirement fund for the benefit of the claimant. The claimant has not completed 10 years of service and is not qualified for regular retirement. The employer's contribution, at most, entitled the claimant to be eligible for two other disability retirements, if approved by the State Retirement office. There is no showing that at the time of the injury he was receiving any tangible benefit of a real present-day value from the state's contribution to the fund. See Sunland Training Center v. Thomas, IRC Order 2-3917 (September 19, 1979). The order is reversed on this issue.

The order is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the cause is remanded to the deputy with directions that he recompute the average weekly wage consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN, SHIVERS and SHAW, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State, DHRS v. Ryan

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Mar 27, 1980
381 So. 2d 269 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
Case details for

State, DHRS v. Ryan

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REHABILITATIVE SERVICES…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Mar 27, 1980

Citations

381 So. 2d 269 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

Citing Cases

United States v. Hernandez

Thus, the officers had not acted "under color of office" or "in some other manner openly asserting their…

Tampa Elec. Co. v. Bradshaw

Appellant, on the other hand, argues that because the claimant's later retroactive pay increase was not, as…