¶1concurring and dissenting.
¶2I cannot agree that deemed earnings is a substantive right for some purposes, but a mere procedural device for other purposes. I nevertheless concur in the result, because reversal is required by precedent set in Wohlgamwth v. Central Maintenance & Welding, 600 So.2d 514, 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); and Braithwaite v. Department of Transportation, 622 So.2d 109, 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). I therefore join in the result.