Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...mployer, the basis of which was that “No employment or age certifi-. cate was issued in Bay County where the deceased was living and employed at the time of his death.” The Industrial Commission predicated that part of the award appealed from on Section 440.54, Florida Statutes 1941, which in effect provides that compensation and death benefits shall be double the....

...The Industrial Commission found that the age • certificate in question was not procured but the trial court found that such finding was not supported by the evidence. On examination of the pertinent statutes, Sections 232.03, 232.07, 232.08, 450.04, 440.54 and perhaps others, shows that the only purpose of the age or employment certificate is to establish the age of minors who be legally drawn into gainful employment....

...by the employer when challenged the court may presume that it has not been secured. If the minor’s age is material it may then be proven by birth certificate or such other evidence as may be admissible. The Industrial Commission based its award on Section 440.54, Florida Statutes 1941, which provides that compensation and death benefits shall be double the amount otherwise payable if it is determined that the injured employee was a minor, working in violation of the Child Labor Laws. We are convinced that Section 440.54 must be read in connection with section 440.20, Florida Statutes 1941, which provides that the “total compensation payable under this Chapter for disability and death shall in no event exceed the sum of $5000.00 in addition to any be...

...s employment. In our view, Section 440.20, above quoted, was a clear limitation of $5000.00 on the amount of compensation or benefits that may be allowed in any case, to which may be added the cost of medical treatment and funeral expenses. Sections 440.54 and 440.20 were not enacted at the same time but were parts of the same statute and when the legislature employed the language, “Shall in no event” the compensation exceed $5000.00, the Industrial Commission was powerless to award more. This view is further supported by the well settled principle that penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the person against whom the penalty is imposed. There can be no question that Section 440.54 imposes a penalty on the employer....

...of any separable portion thereof under which he has not given or accepted benefits. Kristanik v. Chevrolet Motor Co. 335 Mo. 60 , 70 S.W. (2nd) 890 ; Echlin v. Superior Court in and for San Mateo County, 13 Cal. (2nd) 368, 90 Pac. (2nd) 63. We think Section 440.54 is well within this rule ad being so, the employer may question its constitutionality....

...sation Act, relative to liability of employer: "The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, * * *." Section 440.54, Workmen's Compensation Act, relative to additional compensation to minors employed in violation of the Child Labor Law: "If the commission determines that the injured employee at the time of the accident is a minor employed, permitted...

...He was therefore "unlawfully employed." If injured, can such a minor sue at law for personal injury or is he limited to Workmen's Compensation Act to seek recovery? An examination of Section 440.02(2) defining employee, Section 440.11 limiting liability of the employer, and Section 440.54 providing additional compensation to minors employed in violation of the Child Labor Law, forces the conclusion that the minor is limited to his remedy under Workmen's Compensation. Section 440.11 says so in no uncertain terms and the language of Section 440.54 amply fortifies this conclusion....

...There may be substance to this, but the fact remains that when the quoted acts are read and interpreted in sum, any other interpretation than the one given would render meaningless Section 440.02(2) defining employees as including unlawfully employed minors 440.54, relating to additional compensation for minors employed in violation of the Child Labor Law....

...A literal application of this definition would support petitioner's contention that the twenty percent prescribed by Section 440.20(6) is "compensation" but this would seem, without more, to be too superficial an analysis in view of the interpretation given by this court to Section 440.54....

...August 29, 2008, to April 14, 2010. The amount of those benefits will, of course, depend upon determination of Claimant’s average weekly wage on remand. Although the JCC’s award of additional compensation against the employer alone, pursuant to section 440.54, Florida Statutes *1027 (2008), has not been challenged on cross appeal, the amount of that award was based on the amount of temporary partial disability benefits awarded and may also be revisited on remand....

...rporation. He filed a claim under Section 440.15, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., for disability compensation against his employer and Great American Indemnity Company, the insurance carrier. He also filed claim for double compensation as provided by Section 440.54, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A. The Florida Industrial Commission entered an award for disability compensation, the last payment on which was made by the carrier August 30, 1948. 'No award was made under Section 440.54 for double benefits at that time. Thereafter, on May 21, 1952, a- deputy commissioner ordered the employer to pay claimant the double benefits provided by *894 Section 440.54, and denied the claim for additional attorneys fees as provided by Section 440.34, on the ground that payment under Section 440.54 was a penalty and not compensation, and the law providing therefor should be strictly construed....

...Commission August 30, 1948. The Deputy Commissioner denied this claim March 31, 1953, on the ground that the last payment of compensation was made to the employee August 30, 1948, that the payment made by the employer October 31, 1952 as provided by Section 440.54 was a penalty and not compensation within the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act and -that inasmuch as more than one year had expired since the date of the last payment of compensation the claimant was not entitled to reopen the c...

...affirmed the order of the Industrial Commission. We are confronted with an appeal from the latter order. The point for determination may be stated as follows: Was payment of all additional payments by the employer October 31, 1952, as provided under Section 440.54, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., such a payment of “compensation” within the purview of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Section 440.28, as will enable claimant to reopen the case after the one year period provided therein has expi...

...��total compensation payable under this chapter’ ” was limited to $5,000 under the provisions of 440.20(13) F.S.1941, F.S.A. (now repealed). Two factors appear to have led the court to this conclusion: first, the additional amount payable under. 440.54 was a penalty and must be strictly construed; second, the fact that 440.54 and 440.20(13) were not enacted at the same time and the legislature employed the language “ ‘shall in no event’ ” the compensation exceed $5,-000....

...The pertinent part of the opinion was: “In our view, Section 440.20, above quoted, was a clear limitation of $5,000 on the amount of compensation or benefits that may be allowed in any case, to which may be added the cost of medical treatment and funeral ex *895 penses. Sections 440.54 and 440.20 were not enacted at the same time but were parts of the same statute and when the legislature employed the language, ‘shall in no event’ the compensation exceed $5,000 the Industrial Commission was powerless to award more.” (Emphasis supplied.) It may thus be deduced that “total compensation payable under this chapter” (as used in 440.20(13)) was composed of: “pure” compensation and the penalty “benefits” under 440.54....

...payment made by the employer may be regarded as the kind of payment that would entitle the injured minor to reopen his case against the carrier. It is not to be overlooked that Florida Art Stucco Corporation, the employer, is no longer liable under Section 440.54 Florida Statutes, F.S.A., by reason of the compromise stipulation filed herein....

...of one year after the date of the last payment of compensation for a review of the case on the ground of a change of condition or because of a mistake in a determination of fact. The appellant’s contention is that the payment by the employer under Section 440.54 was a payment of “compensation” within the meaning of that term as used in Section 440.28 F.S.1941, F.S.A., the pertinent part being as follows: “Upon their own initiative or upon the application of any party in interest, on the...

...compensation case in accordance with the procedure prescribed in respect of claims in § 440.25, and ■ in accordance with such section, issue a new compensation . order * * (Emphasis supplied.) At the outset is must be noted that the carrier is in no way concerned with the liability of the employer under Section 440.54 for the statute is very specific in that such liability of the employer is solely upon him and no one else. Such additional amounts payable under Section 440.54 is a penalty solely against the employer....

...All the parties have specific rights and obligations under the Act. For this reason one of the parties cannot continue the statutory liability of another party whose liability is separate and apart. The unlawfully employed minor has not only a separate claim against his employer under Section 440.54 but he has a separate and severable claim for compensation against the carrier. Whether we call the payment by the employer under Section 440.54 “compensation” or a “penalty” appears to be immaterial for the statute authorizing modification of the award payable by the carrier or the award of the “penalty” payable solely by the employer must in the interest of due pr...

...ed to include the carrier whose separate responsibility under the Act has long since ended. There is nothing inconsistent in filing a claim under Section 440.28 against the carrier while the employee is currently receiving the penalty payments under Section 440.54 from the employer. As pointed out previously, the liability of the carrier under Section 440.28 is separate and distinct from liability of the employer under Section 440.54....

...wages should be expected to increase during the period of disability the fact may be considered in arriving at his average weekly wages.” . The dc in his order found that this case involved multiple violations of the Child Labor Law and that under Section 440.54, Florida Statutes, the employer was individually liable for the payment of compensation, equal to the amount paid by the carrier....

of age, petitioner brought this suit under Section 440.54, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., to recover

...�s fee for his successful prosecution of a claim for the additional 20% delinquency payment. The 20% delinquency payment is different from other penalties awarded under Chapter 440 in this important respect. For instance, the penalty provided for in Section 440.54, Florida Statutes (1979) for the employment of minors is primarily considered to be a penalty against the employer and only secondarily to be a benefit to the unlawfully employed minor....