Allied Trucking of Florida, Inc. v. Lanza
Docket: No. 1D01-3135
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; September 3, 2002; Florida; State Appellate Court
In this workers’ compensation case, the employer and carrier (E/C) contest the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) ruling that the Appellee was a sole proprietor engaged in the construction industry at the time of his injury. The Appellants also claim that Florida Statutes Sections 440.02(7) and 440.02(14)(c) are unconstitutionally vague, a challenge which is rejected without further discussion. The case centers on whether the Appellee was a statutory employee at the time of his injury, which occurred when he fell from a trailer and fractured his arm. Under Section 440.02(14)(c), a sole proprietor in the construction industry is considered an employee unless they opt out by notifying the Division of Workers’ Compensation. While it is acknowledged that the Appellee was a sole proprietor, the court finds insufficient competent evidence to support the JCC's conclusion that he was actively engaged in the construction industry during the incident. The Workers’ Compensation Law defines the construction industry as involving for-profit activities related to building, clearing, excavation, or significant improvements to structures or land. However, it excludes construction performed by a landowner on their own premises, unless intended for sale. The Appellee did not meet the burden of proof required to demonstrate his active engagement in the construction industry. His testimony regarding hauling construction and demolition materials lacked supporting evidence concerning the origin of those materials and any associated activities at the relevant sites. Consequently, the court reverses and remands the JCC's decision, concluding that there was no competent, substantial evidence justifying the finding that the Appellee was actively engaged in the construction industry at the time of his injury. The judges concur in this decision.