Cases from cite.case.law:

GREAT CLEANING CORPORATION v. BELLO,, 201 So. 3d 186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . reverse and remand because the JCC' erroneously concluded that the calculation method under section 440.14 . . . Section 440.14(1) delineates how to compute, a claimant’s AWW and provides in pertinent part:. (1) Except . . . plain language of statute means that resorting to alternate method of AWW calculation under section 440.14 . . . Here, the JCC concluded that the thirteen-week calculation method under section 440.14(l)(a) could not . . . We note that section 440.14(l)(f), allows a JCC's AWW determination to account for an injured worker's . . .

WESTPHAL, v. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, St. v., 194 So. 3d 311 (Fla. 2016)

. . . continuance there-of, not to exceed 104 weeks except as provided in this subsection, s. 440.12(1), and s. 440.14 . . .

K- C ELECTRIC CO. Co. c o v. WALDEN, o b o, 122 So. 3d 514 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Compensation Law is calculated based on a claimant’s AWW, and the appropriate AWW is calculated under section 440.14 . . .

GARCIA- LOPEZ, v. AFFORDABLE PLUMBING VININGS INSURANCE CO., 66 So. 3d 1024 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . federal income tax purposes’ and cannot be the basis for calculating average weekly wage under section 440.14 . . .

ELIAS, v. WORLD WIDE CONCESSIONS, LLC d b a, 41 So. 3d 304 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . entitlement to benefits, the carrier shall pay compensation directly to the employee as required by §§ 440.14 . . .

EATON, v. PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 995 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . The JCC applied section 440.14(l)(a), Florida Statutes, to calculate Claimant’s AWW. . . . .” § 440.14(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002) (emphasis provided); see also Witzky v. W. . . . Coast Duplicating & Claims Ctr., 503 So.2d 1327, 1328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (noting that section 440.14 . . .

FAST TRACT FRAMING, INC. s v. CARABALLO, AIG, 994 So. 2d 355 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . federal income tax purposes” and cannot be the basis for calculating average weekly wage under section 440.14 . . . Claimant also argues that section 440.02(28) has no impact on the proper interpretation of section 440.14 . . . While we recognize that section 440.14, which provides the method for calculating average weekly wage . . . held that the statute’s 1990 amendment did not change the prior substantive law contained in section 440.14 . . . that, in order to demonstrate that Claimant’s income constitutes wages under sections 440.02(28) and 440.14 . . .

STUBBS, v. BOB DALE CONSTRUCTION, 977 So. 2d 718 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . JCC erred in denying claimant’s request for an average weekly wage (AWW) increase pursuant to section 440.14 . . . This case involves the parties’ differing interpretations of section 440.14(1), Florida Statutes (2006 . . . Based on this assertion, claimant argues that section 440.14(l)(d) should be used to calculate his AWW . . . If so, his AWW calculation must be made pursuant to section 440.14(l)(a). . . . Because section 440.14(l)(a) does not apply, the next inquiry becomes which subsection of 440.14(1) should . . .

ROTSTEIN, v. PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC., 933 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . as of the time of termination, the JCC concluded that the valuation date was controlled by section 440.14 . . . In so concluding, the JCC overlooked pertinent statutory provisions in both section 440.14 and other . . . Section 440.14(1), governing determination of pay, provides in part: “Except as otherwise provided in . . . The reason for the exclusion of the health-insurance premium was that section 440.14(3) then provided . . . should be included in the AWW calculation, the legislature amended section 440.14 in 1989, by adding . . . Because the JCC’s ruling is consistent with the requirements of section 440.14(1), Florida Statutes ( . . .

TAYLOR, v. LABOR FINDERS USA,, 928 So. 2d 435 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . parties agree that the claimant had worked 32 hours during his four days of employment and that section 440.14 . . .

SONNY GLASSBRENNER, INC. v. DOWLING,, 913 So. 2d 82 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . only worked for the employer for approximately one week before being injured, the JCC applied section 440.14 . . . Section 440.14 provides in part: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the average weekly . . . Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND with instructions that the JCC apply section 440.14 . . .

OSCEOLA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD v. BOOS,, 912 So. 2d 667 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . She thus did not have an average weekly wage as delineated in section 440.14, Florida Statutes. . . .

A. FLOWERS, v. ACOUSTI ENGINEERING COMPANY OF FLORIDA, 888 So. 2d 735 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Reviewing de novo the interpretation of section 440.14(l)(a) & (l)(d), Florida Statutes (1987), which . . .

OSCEOLA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD v. ARACE,, 884 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . 440.20(l)(a) states that “the carrier shall pay compensation directly to the employee as required by ss. 440.14 . . .

E. BROOKS, v. FIRST SCAFFOLD EQUIPMENT, INC. Co., 884 So. 2d 420 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . benefits was properly determined utilizing the average weekly wage calculation contained in section 440.14 . . .

VREULS, v. PROGRESSIVE EMPLOYER SERVICES RSKCo,, 881 So. 2d 688 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . define “compensation rate” as “66 2/3 percent of the employee’s average weekly wage pursuant to Section 440.14 . . .

ABLE BODY TEMPORARY SERVICES v. P. LINDLEY,, 867 So. 2d 499 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Section 440.14(1), Florida Statutes (1999), outlines the methods for calculating a claimant’s average . . . Therefore, section 440.14(l)(d) requires that “the full-time weekly wages of the injured employee shall . . . For purposes of section 440.14(l)(d), case law clearly holds that a “full-time” work week need not be . . .

INFINGER TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. JOHNSON,, 863 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . compensation claims made a “ ‘fair and reasonable calculation of average weekly wage under section 440.14 . . .

C. JAMES, Sr. v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., 864 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . affirming the order, approves use of claimant’s 1982 wages and calculation of his AWW under section 440.14 . . . 1981), and rejects claimant’s argument that his AWW should have been calculated pursuant to section 440.14 . . . I am cognizant that section 440.14(l)(a) is generally the preferred method for calculating a claimant . . . I am also aware that section 440.14(l)(d) is most often used in AWW calculations when an injured worker . . . 13 weeks preceding the injury and there is no similar employee to permit calculation under section 440.14 . . . Section 440.14, Florida Statutes (1982), provides in relevant part: (1) Except as otherwise provided . . . Section 440.14(l)(d) is a “fall-back provision where none of the prior subsections apply.” . . . Wal-Mart argued the AWW should be calculated under section 440.14(l)(a) by dividing by 13 the total amount . . . A majority of the supreme court quashed the decision of this Court, determining that “section 440.14( . . . result in a higher compensation rate for a claimant does not compel a finding that the method in section 440.14 . . .

KARNES, v. CITY OF BOCA RATON,, 858 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . See § 440.14(1), Fla. Stat. (1989); see also Waymire v. Fla. Indus. . . .

M. GILBRETH, v. GENESIS ELDERCARE, 821 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . compensation claims (JCC) erred in calculating her average weekly wage (AWW) pursuant to the method set out in 440.14 . . . that her AWW should have been calculated by combining the income from both occupations under section 440.14 . . . In determining that the 13-week calculation was the only method available to claimant under section 440.14 . . . A plain reading of section 440.14(l)(c), regarding the seasonal employment methodology, provides no support . . . We therefore conclude that the JCC erred by employing subsection 440.14(l)(a) to calculate claimant’s . . .

REAVES, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, 792 So. 2d 688 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Section 440.14(1), Florida Statutes (1993), addresses determination of AWW and provides: Except as otherwise . . . Campbell, 714 So.2d 436, 437 (Fla.1998) (adhering to Trainer and explaining that section 440.14(l)(a) . . .

HUBBARD CONSTRUCTION CO. RSKCo, v. McCRAY,, 786 So. 2d 654 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . average weekly wage is $407.45, the figure arrived at as a result of the computations mandated by section 440.14 . . .

CITY OF MIAMI v. CAIRO,, 782 So. 2d 909 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . See § 440.14(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1985). . . .

CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, v. NASWORTHY,, 751 So. 2d 772 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . continuance thereof, not to exceed 104 weeks except as provided in this subsection, s. 440.12(1), and s. 440.14 . . .

CHASE, v. WALGREEN COMPANY,, 750 So. 2d 93 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Smith beyond retaliatory discharge, so that in every case in which there is a dispute under subsection 440.14 . . .

V. THOMAS- JOHNSTON, v. PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC. ITT, 721 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Because she had not worked the thirteen weeks immediately preceding the accident, section 440.14(1)(d . . .

VENCOR HOSPITAL v. AHLES,, 727 So. 2d 968 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . .” § 440.14(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . .

WAL- MART STORES v. CAMPBELL,, 714 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1998)

. . . Trainer, 262 So.2d 193 (Fla.1972), mandates use of section 440.14(l)(a), Florida Statutes, to determine . . . We adhere to our decision in Trainer, which applies section 440.14(l)(a) to calculations of average weekly . . . We continue to find that section 440.14(l)(a), Florida Statutes, sets forth the proper formula for use . . . The district court’s certified question is based upon its conclusion in this ease that section 440.14 . . . Therefore, no basis exists for resorting to section 440.14(l)(d). . . . noted, it is well established that a JCC is purposefully vested with broad discretion to use section 440.14 . . . provision, to ensure a fair and just AWW by utilizing a formula other than the one provided in section 440.14 . . . in determining a fair and reasonable weeldy wage, as well as ignoring the plain meaning of section 440.14 . . . claimant’s AWW based on his actual full-time wages at the time he was injured, as authorized by section 440.14 . . .

PERRY, v. FIRE BARRIER SYSTEMS PCA, 704 So. 2d 559 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . See § 440.14(1)(f), Fla. Stat.; Albertson’s Inc. v. . . .

WAL- MART STORES v. CAMPBELL,, 694 So. 2d 136 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . of compensation claims (JCC) used an improper method of calculating the increased AWW under section 440.14 . . . total amount earned at Krystal and Wal-Mart during the thirteen-week period contemplated by section 440.14 . . . (1), now section 440.14(l)(a). . . . (3), Florida Statutes (1969) [now § 440.14(l)(d), Fla. . . . (l)(d), not section 440.14(l)(a). . . .

GUSMANO, v. J A ASSOCIATES, 692 So. 2d 993 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . . § 440.14(1), Fla.Stat. (1993). . . . less than the full-time hours or full-time workweek of a similar employee in the same employment. § 440.14 . . . be applied, the full-time weekly wages of the injured employee shall be used” pursuant to subsection 440.14 . . . (l)(d), unless the employee is found to be a part-time employee under subsection 440.14(l)(f). . . . on this record, and his average weekly wage should have been calculated in accordance with section 440.14 . . .

MAURANSSI, v. CENTERLINE UTILITIES CONTRACT CO., 685 So. 2d 66 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . On the purported authority of section 440.14(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1995), the order under review puts . . . Section 440.14, Florida Statutes (1995), prescribes methods for calculating a claimant’s average 'weekly . . . less than the full-time hours or full-time workweek of a similar employee in the same employment. § 440.14 . . . the parties stipulated that, as a factual matter, there was no similarly situated employee, section 440.14 . . . This statutory process of elimination leads to the conclusion that section 440.14(l)(d), Florida Statutes . . .

LIL CHAMP FOOD STORES v. ROSS,, 682 So. 2d 649 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . worked substantially the whole of thirteen weeks immediately preceding the injury pursuant to section 440.14 . . . It appears from the testimony and evidence presented, however, that section 440.14(l)(a) is applicable . . . The E/C had calculated claimant’s AWW based on the wages of a similar employee under section 440.14(l . . . Mason was not a similar employee for purposes of section 440.14(l)(b). . . . On remand, the JCC should either apply section 440.14(l)(a) or make findings regarding why (l)(a) is . . .

CODY, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, 681 So. 2d 876 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . full-time, rather than part-time worker for the employer, United Parcel Service, pursuant to section 440.14 . . . determined his status as a part-time employee, the JCC should not have used the 13-week formula of section 440.14 . . . Section 440.14(l)(a) provides that the AWW shall be l/13th of a claimant’s wages earned during the 13 . . . JCC next reviewed the actual wages Cody earned during the 13 weeks before his injury, using section 440.14 . . . remand, the JCC must determine Cody’s total customary part-time hours in order to decide whether section 440.14 . . .

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA v. COLLINS,, 678 So. 2d 503 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . First, they contend that in determining Claimant’s AWW, the judge erred in failing to apply subsection 440.14 . . . We hold, as did the judge below, that subsection 440.14(l)(a) is inapplicable to the facts in this case . . . rate of $175.60 (40 hours x $4.39 hourly rate) for AWW purposes, plus includable fringe benefits. § 440.14 . . .

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA v. BOWENS,, 677 So. 2d 942 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Section 440.14, Florida Statutes (1989), provides in pertinent part: (1) Except as otherwise provided . . . Section 440.14 does not limit the inclusion of wages to that paid in the 13 weeks immediately preceding . . . appellant’s workers’ compensation benefits “shall be one-thirteenth of the total amount of wages earned,” § 440.14 . . .

IRWIN YACHT MARINE CORP. v. PIERNIK,, 675 So. 2d 975 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . . § 440.14, Fla. Stat. . . .

BRADLEY, v. HURRICANE RESTAURANT, 670 So. 2d 162 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . continuance thereof, not to exceed 104 weeks except as provided in this subsection, s. 440.12(1), and s. 440.14 . . .

PUTNAM COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD v. DEBOSE,, 667 So. 2d 447 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . were based on the court’s construction of explicit language of the pertinent subsections of section 440.14 . . . Because Iley involved the construction and application of section 440.14(1)(c), which defined the AWW . . . The calculation of the AWW under section 440.14(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1993), is based upon . . .

E. SHEFFIELD, v. BRANNEN S LAND CLEARING, 666 So. 2d 981 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . in the calculation of his average weekly wage and corresponding compensation rate under subsection 440.14 . . . Consequently, applying subsection 440.14(l)(d), the judge considered Sheffield’s full-time weekly wages . . . earned had he continued working” when determining the claimant’s full-time weekly wages under subsection 440.14 . . . Nothing in our decision in Fernandez suggests that if subsection 440.14(l)(d) properly applies, the judge . . .

A. HARDING, v. WINN- DIXIE STORES, INC. a a, 907 F. Supp. 386 (M.D. Fla. 1995)

. . . Florida Statutes, Sections 440.14 and 440.15 (1990). . . .

CHAMPLOVIER, v. CITY OF MIAMI,, 667 So. 2d 315 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Section 440.14(1), Florida Statutes (1977), provided that “... the average weekly wages of the injured . . .

JACKSON, v. HOCHADEL ROOFING COMPANY, 657 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . The appellant agrees that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) was correct in utilizing section 440.14 . . . Russell, 513 So.2d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (deputy commissioner correctly determined AWW under section 440.14 . . . Jackson asserts, however, that the JCC erred in the manner of calculating his AWW under section 440.14 . . . broad discretion in determining a fair and reasonable calculation of average weekly wage under section 440.14 . . . Russell, 513 So.2d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (deputy commissioner correctly determined AWW under section 440.14 . . . order only so far as it finds that a full-time weekly wage in this case must be determined under Sec. 440.14 . . . led into error by the failure of either party to argue a complete and correct application of Section 440.14 . . . The statutory language which must be applied here is the mandate of Sec. 440.14(l)(d), F.S., to determine . . . required a projection into a five-day work week in order to achieve a full-time weekly wage under Sec. 440.14 . . . actual earnings would by no means be universally required in prospective determination of AWW under Sec. 440.14 . . .

EAST PASCO MEDICAL CENTER v. JONES,, 659 So. 2d 356 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . that the judge of compensation claims (JCC) should have applied the part-time worker statute, section 440.14 . . . The JCC found that section 440.14(1)© did not apply in determining Jones’ AWW because, although Jones . . . The part-time worker statute, section 440.14(1)©, provides: If it [is] established [1] that the injured . . . As competent substantial evidence thus supports the JCC’s finding that the third element of section 440.14 . . .

M. PRUITT, v. LOTSPEICH CO. OF FLORIDA, INC., 655 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . period of time to be utilized in properly determining an employee’s average weekly wage under section 440.14 . . . claimant’s average weekly wage due to the parties’ disagreement as to the interpretation of section 440.14 . . . Section 440.14(l)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: (a) If the injured employee has worked . . .

L. CRAMER, v. STATE FLORIDA O. A. a FCCI a a a a, 885 F. Supp. 1545 (M.D. Fla. 1995)

. . . . § 440.14(4)(b), Florida Statutes. . . .

CHARLES J. GIVENS ORGANIZATION, v. J. MORRIS,, 652 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . that appellee worked for substantially all of the 13 weeks before his injury and, accordingly, section 440.14 . . . acknowledged by the parties, Morris’ receipt of full pay would have, in any event, resulted in a zero AWW. § 440.14 . . .

DE RUSSO, v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE,, 652 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . 1993) (en banc) (concurrent earnings must be included in determining an employee’s AWW under section 440.14 . . .

TAYLOR, v. CERTIFIED POULTRY EGG CO., 651 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . had worked substantially the whole of the 13 weeks preceding his compen-sable accident under section 440.14 . . . )(a), Florida Statutes (1989), or, alternatively, that his wages during that time satisfied section 440.14 . . . incorporate Narvez’s wages in calculating Taylor’s AWW under the “similar employee” method of section 440.14 . . .

MAYFLOWER CORPORATION v. O. DAVIS,, 655 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . premium basis upon which Claimant paid workers’ compensation insurance premiums instead of section 440.14 . . . The E/C, however, argued that Claimant’s AWW should have been calculated according to section 440.14( . . . contracted for in the company’s workers’ compensation policy rather than a rate computed under section 440.14 . . . Obviously, methods other than that set forth in section 440.14(1) may be used to calculate a claimant . . . Here, the JCC was free to use a method other than that delineated in section 440.14(1) as long as that . . .

ROSADO, v. J. C. PENNEY, 647 So. 2d 987 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Section 440.14(1) states that “the average weekly wage of the injured employee at the time of the injury . . .

ELLIS, v. CITY OF FROSTPROOF, 642 So. 2d 113 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . improperly declined to consider all of the relevant circumstances in determining whether to apply section 440.14 . . . Section 440.14(l)(f), provides that if it is established that: ... the injured employee was a part-time . . . In determining whether to apply section 440.14(l)(f), the judge should have considered all of the relevant . . .

J. BLIND, v. IT S A BIT FISHY, INC., 639 So. 2d 703 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Blind contends section 440.14(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), requires the JCC to calculate her AWW using . . . Concurrent earnings must be included in determining an employee’s AWW under section 440.14(1)(a), Florida . . . There is no inherent conflict between section 440.14(1)(a), defining “AWW,” and section 440.02(24), defining . . . Incorporated and the carrier is Executive Risk Consultants, Incorporated (together "E/C”). .Section 440.14 . . . Like the claimant in Vegas, Blind is not subject to section 440.14(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1991), as . . .

HRS DISTRICT IV v. D. EAST,, 632 So. 2d 719 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . the order determining AWW and remand for further proceedings consistent with Vegas and with section 440.14 . . .

CARRAZANA, v. POINTE OF HIALEAH, 632 So. 2d 172 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . .-02(24) and 440.14(1), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990), excluded wages from claimant’s concurrent employment . . .

SOUTHALL, v. SARA- CHAR BROADCASTING, 630 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . appeals a workers’ compensation order which denied a claim for concurrent wages pursuant to section 440.14 . . .

GALLINGANE, v. BISHOPS GLEN, 635 So. 2d 71 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Gallingane (claimant) appeals a workers’ compensation order which ruled that pursuant to section 440.14 . . .

NOWAK, v. YMCA SOUTH COUNTY,, 629 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . amendment to section 440.02(24) has no impact on the calculation of average weekly wage under Section 440.14 . . .

VAN NGUYEN, v. PLASTICS INTERNATIONAL, 629 So. 2d 310 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Tri Van Nguyen (Claimant) appeals a workers’ compensation order which ruled that pursuant to section 440.14 . . .

E. VEGAS, v. GLOBE SECURITY CIGNA,, 627 So. 2d 76 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . The portion of section 440.14 that applies to the present case provides as follows: 440.14 Determination . . . One year later the court again looked at section 440.14 in J.J. Murphy & Son, Inc. v. . . . Expressly referring to section 440.14, the court noted: On re-examination of the J.J. . . . American Uniform’s rationale derived from section 440.14, as has been detailed above. . . . In Jaquette, supra, the court referred to subsection (3) of section 440.14 (440.14(1)(d), Fla.Stat. . . . reasoning of the majority opinion, I cannot agree to an average weekly wage determination under section 440.14 . . . In construing section 440.14(l)(a) in isolation, the majority disregard the acknowledged legislative . . . As a term of art used in chapter 440, “average weekly wages” under section 440.14 are obviously not synonymous . . . section 440.-02(24) present any necessary conflict with the average weekly wage concept under section 440.14 . . .

EFFICIENT SYSTEMS, INC. v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION,, 624 So. 2d 343 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . The issue raised by appellant is whether the judge incorrectly interpreted section 440.14(l)(d) by utilizing . . . Both parties stipulated and the JCC found that section 440.14(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1991), was the . . . To determine average weekly wage, one must apply one of the subsections contained in section 440.14(1 . . . Section 440.14(l)(d) is the section both parties agree applies to the claimant. . . . Section 440.14(l)(c) only applies to seasonal employees, which claimant was not. . . .

L. WALDORF, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 622 So. 2d 515 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . nature of claimant’s employment does not fit neatly into any of the alternatives afforded by section 440.14 . . . There were no “similar employees”; therefore, section 440.14(l)(b) could not be used. . . . Claimant was not a “seasonal worker,” so section 440.14(l)(c) could not be used. . . . Section 440.14(l)(f), Fla. Stat. (1989). . . . Thus, it would appear that section 440.14(l)(f), relating to part-time employment, would apply. . . . The 13-week method provided in Section 440.14(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), was obviously inapplicable . . . agree with the majority that the appropriate statutory method for determining claimant’s AWW is section 440.14 . . .

PISHOTTA, v. PISHOTTA TILE MARBLE, INC., 613 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . The statute applicable to the instant case, section 440.14, Florida Statutes (1985), provides in subsection . . . Thus, “wages,” as utilized in section 440.14 for purposes of establishing an average weekly wage, measures . . .

V. GRUBER, Jr. v. BUDD SERERINO GUTTERS SIDING, 613 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . AWW) as $327.85, contending that the judge of compensation claims (JCC) did not comply with Section 440.14 . . . Section 440.14(l)(a) provides: If the injured employee has worked in the employment in which he was working . . . Because section 440.14(l)(a) is inapplicable to Gruber under the facts of this case, we remand for the . . . determine Gru-ber’s AWW by using the most applicable of the alternative methods provided in section 440.14 . . .

CITY OF MIAMI, v. FERNANDEZ,, 603 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Florida Statutes (1985), but then enhanced the “hours worked” to 50 hours per week based on section 440.14 . . . pertinent statutory subsections and the evidence presented that the JCC failed to correctly apply section 440.14 . . . (l)(b), and erroneously enhanced claimant’s hours worked by virtue of section 440.14(l)(e). . . . Moreover, we hold the JCC erred in enhancing claimant’s hours worked by virtue of section 440.14(l)(e . . . s AWW on the basis of a comparison of the average wages of a similar standby employee under section 440.14 . . .

AGUIAR, v. DORAL HOTEL AND COUNTRY CLUB, 599 So. 2d 698 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . aside, the JCC was obligated to determine claimant’s AWW under the 13-week formula set out Section 440.14 . . . Gainesville Bonded Warehouse, 409 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (section 440.14(1)(a) shall be used . . . generally subject to seasonal layoffs did not elect to be treated as a seasonal worker pursuant to section 440.14 . . . Even if his AWW had been determined under section 440.14(1), because claimant did not elect to be characterized . . . the 1987 records, although they would have been necessary to calculate claimant’s AWW under section 440.14 . . .

EXPICARE NURSING SERVICES v. EUDALEY,, 596 So. 2d 126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . JCC’s determination of how claimant’s average weekly wage (AWW) was to be determined pursuant to § 440.14 . . . substantially the whole of 13 weeks immediately preceding the injury” as that period is defined in § 440.14 . . . See § 440.14(1)(b). . . . Bridger and Peggy Gillespie-Privett were “similar employees” for purposes of the statute and that § 440.14 . . . Under those circumstances, it is necessary for the JCC to apply § 440.14(l)(d), the fall-back provision . . .

GREATER FLORIDA OUTDOOR ADVERTISING v. S. DICHRISTINA,, 591 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . We find that the claimant’s average weekly wage, as determined under section 440.14(l)(d), Florida Statutes . . . should not have included an increase in the claimant’s earnings after the time of the injury, Section 440.14 . . . ), Florida Statutes, contains a general reference to wages “at the time of the injury,” and section 440.14 . . . The average weekly wage determination under section 440.14(l)(d) may be based on the claimant’s actual . . .

HILTON, v. CORAL SPRINGS HONDA, 572 So. 2d 7 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . In so finding, the JCC rejected the 13-week method, as provided by section 440.14(l)(a), Florida Statutes . . . JCC also rejected, after considerable discussion of the matter, the similar employee method, section 440.14 . . .

RICHARDSON, v. MORRELL S, INC., 570 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . finding that the claimant’s AWW should be based on her part-time earnings, and held as follows: Section 440.14 . . . be applied, the full-time weekly wages of the injured employee shall be used” pursuant to subsection 440.14 . . . (l)(d), unless the employee is found to be a-part-time employee under subsection 440.14(l)(f). . . . court remanded for a redetermination of the claimant’s AWW as a full-time employee under either section 440.14 . . . industrial injury, but does not meet the three requirements of a part-time employee, neither section 440.14 . . .

WESTERN AUTO v. MOORE,, 567 So. 2d 972 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . the judge was required to use that evidence to determine the AWW under the method provided in Section 440.14 . . . Finally, we address the question of the proper application of Section 440.14(l)(a), Florida Statutes, . . .

EDWARDS CNA v. CAULFIELD, 560 So. 2d 364 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Harrison, 529 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) and Section 440.14(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), earnings . . . This case is REMANDED for (1) a proper calculation of claimant’s AWW in accordance with Section 440.14 . . . See § 440.14(1)(f), Fla.Stat. (1987); Eaton v. . . . Section 440.14(l)(f) recognizes that it would be inequitable to compensate a worker only on the basis . . .

ALBERTSON S INC. v. NATALE,, 555 So. 2d 946 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . See Section 440.14(l)(a). The judge awarded temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits. . . . Section 440.14(1)(a) directs that if a claimant has worked substantially all of the 13 weeks prior to . . . It follows that the judge acted correctly in applying Section 440.14(l)(a); the question is whether the . . . judge should then have proceeded to modify the calculation pursuant to Section 440.14(l)(f). . . . The judge therefore properly declined to apply Section 440.14(1)(f). . . .

J. CARVELL, v. CAVINESS MOTOR COMPANY,, 552 So. 2d 250 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Although claimant argued that his average weekly wage should have been calculated under the Section 440.14 . . . method, the judge of compensation claims found that method inapplicable and instead applied the Section 440.14 . . .

GRIECO, v. LEHIGH CORPORATION Co., 549 So. 2d 748 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Section 440.14(3) or 440.-20(14) might support this ultimate conclusion, but the employer and carrier . . .

HAPPLE SOLAR CONTRACTORS Co. v. HAPPLE,, 547 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Pursuant to Section 440.14(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), where the claimant has been employed regularly . . .

ALTERMAN TRANSPORT LINES, v. RUST,, 547 So. 2d 337 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . .-14(l)(b), or that claimant was a seasonal employee, section 440.14(l)(c). . . . deputy used claimant’s full-time weekly wages to calculate his average weekly wage, pursuant to section 440.14 . . . Section 440.14(l)(a), provides that if an injured employee was working during substantially the whole . . . Section 440.14(l)(d), authorizes the use of the claimant’s full-time weekly wages, if any of the alternative . . . for recom-putation of claimant’s average weekly wage, pursuant to the procedure set forth in section 440.14 . . .

PRESTRESSED DECKING CORP. v. MEDRANO,, 556 So. 2d 406 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Seaboard Contractors, 473 So.2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), § 440.14(1)(d), Fla.Stat. . . .

TILE PLUS CNA v. ALBANESE,, 546 So. 2d 93 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Albanese, obtained a workers’ compensation order increasing his average weekly wage pursuant to section 440.14 . . . deputy commissioner properly used the two weeks’ wages to compute the average weekly wage under section 440.14 . . .

STRICKLAND, v. NEIL S PAINTING, 545 So. 2d 333 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . immediately preceding the injury” satisfies the “consecutive period of 91 days” provision of section 440.14 . . . DC included this prior employment period, the “consecutive period of 91 days” requirement of section 440.14 . . .

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD v. FLITER,, 539 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . They cite section 440.14(3), Florida Statutes, for the proposition that fringe benefits, including vested . . . These benefits are also within the scope of section 440.14(3) in that they can be excluded from AWW to . . . its contributions to retirement from the calculation of claimant’s average weekly wage under section 440.14 . . . benefits, we would observe that such an argument is irrelevant to an AWW computation under section 440.14 . . . While the language of section 440.14(3) makes no specific provision for voluntary retirement, neither . . .

ILEY v. LINZEY,, 531 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . entitled to have his wage determined on his total earnings during calendar year 1985 pursuant to section 440.14 . . . impose a burden on the claimant which would be unreasonable and not contemplated by Florida Statute 440.14 . . . None of these cases, however, has dealt with the seasonal worker provision in section 440.14(l)(c) and . . . The court, after quoting section 440.14(5) (as it read at that time), affirmed the full commission’s . . . Section 440.14(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1985), states in part: If an employee is a seasonal worker and . . .

QUALITY PAINTING, INC. v. HARRISON,, 529 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . employed for 13 weeks as a cashier her average weekly wage should be established pursuant to section 440.14 . . . While section 440.14(1)(a) refers to the employment in which the claimant is working at the time of the . . . Trainer, supra, indicates that in cases of dissimilar concurrent employment section 440.14(1)(a) will . . . In accordance with section 440.14(3), Florida Statutes, the deputy reduced claimant’s average weekly . . . as a seasonal worker pursuant to section 440.14(1)(c), Florida Statutes. . . .

CITY OF HIALEAH v. JIMENEZ,, 527 So. 2d 936 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . weekly wage determination was based upon claimant’s full-time weekly wages in accordance with section 440.14 . . . employee did exist, so as to warrant an average weekly wage determination in accordance with section 440.14 . . .

YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC. v. COOMBS,, 523 So. 2d 657 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . amount of claimant’s average weekly wage on the basis that it was improperly calculated under section 440.14 . . . of the evidence, the deputy found that claimant was not a part-time employee as defined by section 440.14 . . . injury, since he only worked thirty-one of sixty-five days, and that the method set forth in section 440.14 . . . required in which to perform it by the drivers, thereby eliminating the calculation method under section 440.14 . . . not seasonal for purposes of subsection (l)(c), the deputy employed the method provided in section 440.14 . . .

FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, v. VALEZ,, 514 So. 2d 395 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . minor-employee’s average weekly wage (AWW) in the sum of $384.84, pursuant to the method provided in Section 440.14 . . . accident until the date of MMI, or May 19, 1982, based on the statutory method provided in section 440.14 . . . additional compensation benefits during that period pursuant to the procedure authorized by section 440.14 . . . It is the carrier's position that section 440.14(l)(e) allows for an adjustment to a minor’s AWW, only . . . Section 440.14(l)(e) provides: "If it be established that the injured employee was a minor when injured . . .

SAM BLOOM PLUMBING COMPANY v. BOYKIN,, 513 So. 2d 193 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . the claimant contended that for purposes of calculating his AWW section 440.-14(l)(e), rather than 440.14 . . . Section 440.14(l)(e) states: If it be established that the injured employee was a minor when injured, . . . Neither section 440.14, nor for that matter any other statute of the Workers’ Compensation Law, confers . . . Since no statutory definition is provided under section 440.14, we follow the general rule of statutory . . . The dc’s order shows that, had the claimant’s AWW been computed under section 440.14(l)(a), his hourly . . .

GOMEZ CNA v. MURDOCH,, 520 So. 2d 600 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . claimant had only one job on the date of the accident, the concurrent employment rule embodied in section 440.14 . . .

SPARTAN ELECTRONICS CNA v. RUSSELL,, 513 So. 2d 153 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . However, the deputy commissioner properly calculated the average weekly wage pursuant to section 440.14 . . .

EATON, v. PINEBROOK PLACE HEALTH CARE CENTER Co., 506 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . commissioner determining that appellant’s average weekly wage (AWW) should be calculated under section 440.14 . . . Section 440.14(l)(b) provides that, in the event a claimant has worked less than ninety percent of customary . . . be applied, the full-time weekly wages of the injured employee shall be used” pursuant to subsection 440.14 . . . (l)(d), unless the employee is found to be a part-time employee under subsection 440.14(l)(f). . . . Because claimant had worked full-time only two weeks, this section, rather than subsection 440.14(l)( . . .

HAYNES, v. GORDON HAYNES STATE CERTIFIED GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC., 506 So. 2d 471 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . The deputy concluded that although it was difficult to calculate the average weekly wage using § 440.14 . . . (l)(a), it was the fairest determination of any method contained in § 440.14. . . . It is well established that the determination of average weekly wage under § 440.14(l)(a) is to be based . . . However, the deputy erred in the application of § 440.14(l)(a) to the facts appearing in the record. . . . On remand, if § 440.14(l)(a) is to be followed in calculating claimant’s average weekly wage, it will . . .

WITZKY, v. WEST COAST DUPLICATING CLAIMS CENTER,, 503 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . The deputy, applying section 440.14(1)(a), reduced that amount by the cost of health insurance benefits . . . Section 440.14(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), speaks in terms of wages “earned” by a claimant during . . . Our holding in this case, that for the purpose of calculating average weekly wage under section 440.14 . . . may not be directly related to the wage-earning activities of a claimant, the wage data used under 440.14 . . . , in their discretion, to use alternative methods for calculating average weekly wage under section 440.14 . . .

COTE, v. COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC., 502 So. 2d 500 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . from an occupational disease ... shall be treated as the happening of an injury by accident_” Section 440.14 . . . such disability is the pertinent time for the average weekly wage determination pursuant to section 440.14 . . .

K- MART KM v. JONES,, 502 So. 2d 495 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . claimant’s average weekly wage is entirely consistent with the supreme court’s construction of section 440.14 . . . (3), Florida Statutes (1969) [now § 440.14(l)(d), Fla.Stat. (1983)], in American Uniform & Rental Service . . .

CUCCAROLLO, v. GULF COAST BUILDING CONTRACTORS U. S. F. G., 500 So. 2d 547 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Section 440.14(l)(c), Fla. Stat. This would not be the case in Guthrie and Eckert. AFFIRMED. . . .

ADART SOUTH POLYBAG MFG. INC. v. GOLDBERG,, 495 So. 2d 826 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . employee’s wages should be calculated according to the full-time weekly wages method, pursuant to Section 440.14 . . . That claimant did not actually receive such amount is immaterial under section 440.14(l)(d), in that . . .

ANSTEAD, v. COX BROADCASTING CNA, 500 So. 2d 197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . .-14(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1983) rather than Section 440.14(l)(c), Fla.Stat. (1983) to determine his average . . . Anstead filed a claim for benefits seeking an increase in his average weekly wage based on 440.14(l)( . . . We hold that the deputy erred in finding that 440.14(l)(c) was inapplicable merely because Anstead had . . . The legislature has prescribed 440.14(l)(a) as the preferred compensation rate base unless the use of . . . This court held it was absolutely bound to use Section 440.14(1) (now 440.14(l)(a)) because the claimant . . . 1982), and their progeny, holding that an employee cannot utilize the method prescribed by section 440.14 . . . Florida Industrial Commission, decided before the 1974 legislature amended section 440.14 by including . . . In 1974, the legislature added subsection (3) (now subsection (l)(c)) to section 440.14, which provides . . . of an industrial injury, to be contrary to the legislative purpose behind the enactment of section 440.14 . . . He found that section 440.14(l)(c) was inapplicable “[bjecause ... . . .

MUNROE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER v. E. RICKER,, 489 So. 2d 785 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . . §§ 440.02(21), 440.14, Fla.Stat. (1983). . . .

TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY, v. BRADSHAW,, 477 So. 2d 624 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . The deputy commissioner (deputy) found § 440.14(l)(a), Fla.Stat., provides that the average weekly wage . . . (emphasis supplied), whereas § 440.14(l)(a) provides that the AWW is to be based on the average of the . . . While § 440.14(l)(a) does refer to the amount earned rather than to the amount paid, subsection 440.- . . . pay increase issue, the arguments raised suggest a potential conflict between sections 440.02(21) and 440.14 . . . Section 440.14(l)(a) provides for the computation of the AWW as follows: If the injured employee has . . . The deputy, reasoning that because section 440.14(l)(a) provides that the AWW should be based upon wages . . . Taylor, in which the Commission, in interpreting Section 440.14(1), Florida Statutes (1971), concluded . . . Following the above doctrine of construction, we construe section 440.14(l)(a) in favor of claimant-appellee . . .