Linda Wagner Farrell

The decedent/worker, a 16-year-old, tragically drowned on his first day of work at his very first job. His mother, the claimant in this matter, sought death benefits. The employer accepted compensability of the workplace death and paid medical and funeral costs, but it denied death benefits, asserting the mother and her other children were not dependents of her son. The mother was supporting herself and five other children, two of whom were minors, with the worker’s Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which was due to a permanent learning disability. The employer also argued the worker had only been working for one day and had no other income leading to the mother’s dependency. The Judge of Compensation Claims denied the claim and concluded the decedent’s mother had not established dependency because the decedent had never worked before, which meant there was no evidence to support that he had the ability to support himself, much less anyone else.

The claimant/mother made several arguments, but the First District Court of Appeal addressed only one and rejected the others without further comment.

The claimant argued that the statute does not limit dependency to her son’s wage earning ability or his capacity to separately provide for himself. She argued they relied on her son’s SSI benefits, which stopped because of his death. The appellate court felt this was a misreading of the statue.

Section 440.16(1)(b) allows for death benefits for specified relatives based on dependency, which is also calculated by the injured worker’s wages. The appellate court opined that the use of the word “wages” equates to the decedent having wage earning capacity. They went on to say the Florida Supreme Court has considered the constitutionality of the death benefit statute and found that the benefits within Chapter 440 are directly related to loss of earning power.

The appellate court held that the SSI benefits the claimant/mother received were welfare payments paid to assist in her son’s support and actually made him a dependent. Therefore, the claimant was not able to show actual dependency on her son. Furthermore, because it was his first day on the job and he had never held a paying job before, she was unable to show that his death resulted in a wage loss because there were no prior earnings to establish that she had been expecting that support. The judge’s order was affirmed.

 

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 26, No. 9, September 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}