WINSTON O. SALMON, APPELLANT,
v.
ELECTRO-PHOS CORPORATION AND FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLEES
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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of additional disability benefits but reversed and remanded on the issues of penalties, interest, costs, and attorney's fees related to a late-paid increase in the claimant's weekly compensation rate.
The court affirmed the denial of additional disability benefits resulting from the rate increase, but reversed and remanded for determination of whether appellant is entitled to penalties and costs for the appellees' alleged late payment of the increased compensation rate, and to determine a reasonable attorney's fee due as a result of the additional benefits obtained through the rate increase.
[1] An appellate court will affirm a judgment if the appellant fails to demonstrate reversible error on the points raised.
[2] An increase in a claimant's weekly compensation rate, if paid prior to a subsequent order, does not entitle the claimant to additional disability benefits based on that r…
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“The record supports denial of additional disability benefits as a result of an increase in the compensation rate. The increase in the compensation rate was included in a previous order entered on August 2, 1978, and was paid by the appellees prior to the hearing resulting in the March 16, 1979 order now on appeal.”
Establishes the basis for affirming denial of additional disability benefits
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWinston Salmon claimed entitlement to additional temporary and permanent disability benefits, penalties, and interest after his weekly compensation ra…
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 Claim For Penalties And Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant raises five points on appeal from an order of the judge of industrial claims denying and dismissing the claim with prejudice. After a careful examination of the record and briefs in this case, we find that the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error as to the first three points on appeal and, accordingly, we affirm. As to the remaining two points on appeal, we reverse.
The appellant alleges error in denial of the claimant’s entitlement to additional temporary and permanent disability benefits along with penalties and interest due when the weekly compensation rate was increased. The compensation order found that all temporary and permanent disability benefits had been timely paid.' However, it also noted that claimant’s weekly compensation rate had been increased.
The record supports denial of additional disability benefits as a result of an increase in the compensation rate. The increase in the compensation rate was included in a previous order entered on August 2, 1978, and was paid by the appellees prior to the hearing resulting in the March 16, 1979 order now on appeal.
We conclude there was error in failure to adjudicate appellant’s claim for penalties and interest allegedly due as a result of the appellees’ late payment of benefits resulting from the increase in the claimant’s compensation rate, and in denial of appellant’s claim for costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee, in light of the additional benefits obtained from the increased weekly compensation rate.
We therefore direct modification of the decretal portion of the March 16, 1979 order to give effect to the increase in appellant’s weekly compensation rate. We also reverse and remand this cause for further proceedings to determine whether appellant is entitled to penalties and costs for the appellees’ alleged late payment of the increase in the compensation rate, and to determine a reasonable attorney’s fee due as a result of the additional benefits obtained through the increase in the weekly compensation rate.
SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur. BOOTH, J., dissents.
BOOTH, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent from this court’s retention of jurisdiction in this case, which arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court. See Crews v. Town of Bay Harbor, 378 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
On the merits, I would concur in the majority’s opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King v. Lord Colony Enters. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 400 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…Contractors, Inc., 215 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1968). This purpose is served by awarding penalties respecting benefits the payment of which is delayed due to an incorrect compensation rate, for which no excuse is offered. Cf. Salmon v. Electro-Phos Corp., 379 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (error to fail to adjudicate claim for penalties allegedly due as a result of late payment of benefits resulting from increase in compensation rate). Appellant also argues, and appellee concedes, that claimant is entitled to int…
Authorities Cited
- Emerson Crews v. Town OF BAY Harbor Islands & Metro. Dade Cnty. Self Ins. Fund, 378 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)