W.G. ROE & SONS, APPELLANT,
v.
JAVIER RAZO-GUEVARA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the court addressed the proper interpretation of Florida Statutes section 440.093(3) limiting temporary total disability benefits for mental or nervous injuries to six months. The court held that the six-month limitation only applies when permanent benefits are being paid for the associated physical injury, and reversed the lower court's application of the statute where no permanent benefits were awarded.
The six-month limitation on temporary psychiatric benefits is conditioned upon the payment of permanent benefits for the associated physical injury. Since the claimant was not being paid permanent benefits, the statute does not apply, and the JCC erred in applying it to limit the claimant's TTD benefits.
[1] Temporary benefits for a compensable mental or nervous injury are not payable for more than six months after the date of physical maximum medical improvement, subject to…
[2] The plain language of a statute must be consulted when construing its meaning.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“in no event shall temporary benefits for a compensable mental or nervous injury be paid for more than 6 months after the date of [physical MMI]”
The statutory provision at issue that the lower court applied to limit temporary total disability benefits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Employer/Carrier appealed and the Claimant cross-appealed an order from the Judge of Compensation Claims granting some requests for indemnity bene…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Indemnity Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation appeal, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) appeal, and Claimant cross-appeals, an order granting some requests for indemnity benefits and denying others. We affirm the order in all respects except to the extent the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) limited his award of temporary total disability benefits to six months.
The JCC limited the award to six months by applying section 440.093(3), Florida Statutes (2004). This statute provides that, “[sjubject to the payment of permanent benefits under s. 440.15, in no event shall temporary benefits for a compensable mental or nervous injury be paid for more than 6 months after the date of [physical MMI].... ” The scope of section 440.093(3), Florida Statutes, is an issue of first impression.
In construing a statute, courts must look to its plain language. See Fla. Dep’t of Educ. v. Cooper, 858 So. 2d 394, 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Subject [to] is defined as dependent on some act or condi tion. The MeRriam-WebsteR DictionaRY 712 (New ed., 2004). Thus, the six-month limitation on temporary psychiatric benefits is conditioned upon the payment of permanent benefits for the associated physical injury. This means the limitation does not apply unless permanent benefits are being paid. Because Claimant is not being paid permanent benefits, this statute does not apply here. Therefore, the JCC erred in applying it to limit Claimant’s TTD benefits.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
LEWIS and THOMAS, JJ., and LAWRENCE, JR., L. ARTHUR, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sch. Bd. OF LEE Cnty. & Johns E. Co., Inc. v. Leila Huben, 165 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…r reaches physical MMI, and not a consecutive month period.” There is no question that the TTD award here is subject to section 440.093(3); the statute applies here because Claimant received impairment benefits. See W.G. Roe & Sons v. Razo-Guevara, 999 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). But we find error in the JCC’s interpretation of the statute. See, e.g., Lombardi v. S. Wine & Spirits, 890 So. 2d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review). In contrast to t…
-
Utopia Home Care/Guarantee Ins. Co. v. Alvarez, 230 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…e expressly stated in Huben, the Legislature can amend the statute if it did not contemplate such a result. Id. The Legislature has not done so.3 Huben is not inconsistent with, or limited by, our earlier opinion in W.G. Roe & Sons v. Razo-Guevara, 999 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). In Razo-Guevara, we noted that the claimant there was not being paid permanent benefits. Id. at 709. Interpreting Razo-Guevara in light of the plain meaning of the statute and, as consistent with Huben, we conclude that Razo-Gue…
-
Kneer v. Lincare & Travelers Ins., 267 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…mants to wait indefinitely to receive permanent disability benefits, or 6 expose claimants to economic ruination while awaiting qualification for permanent benefits, as was Mr. Westphal’s situation. See W.G. Roe & Sons v. Razo-Guevara, 999 So. 2d 708, 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (noting that “the six-month limitation on temporary psychiatric benefits is conditioned upon the payment of permanent benefits for the associated physical injury”). Another reason we don’t see a constitutional problem wi…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Delbridge Edwards v. State, 858 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Fla. Dep't OF Educ. v. Cooper, 858 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)