CITY OF VERO BEACH AND ROYAL GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS.
v.
ERNEST THOMAS, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a workers' compensation judge's modification of a stipulated average weekly wage, holding that Section 440.28 permits modification only for mistakes made by the judge in determining facts, not for a claimant's unilateral failure to present available evidence at the time of stipulation.
The court held that Section 440.28 permits modification only for mistakes in the determination of fact made by the judge of industrial claims, not for mistakes or omissions by the parties or their counsel. A stipulation should not be set aside absent fraud, overreaching, misrepresentation, or withholding of facts by the adversary party. A unilateral party mistake does not authorize redetermination of average weekly wage.
[1] A workers' compensation order may be modified based on a mistake in the determination of a fact, but not for a party's failure to present all available evidence.
[2] A stipulation in a workers' compensation case should not be set aside unless there is fraud, overreaching, misrepresentation, or withholding of facts by the adversary.
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 statute permits a modification based upon "a mistake in the determination of a fact." Here we have no such mistake but merely a failure on the part of the claimant to present evidence which could have been considered in determining a fact, namely, his average weekly wage. The statute contemplates corrections based upon a mistake made by the judge of industrial claims, not by one of the parties or their counsel.”
Establishes the core holding that Section 440.28 only permits modification for judicial mistakes, not party omissions or failures to present evidence.
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 and carrier stipulated to the claimant's average weekly wage at $162.50. Three years later, the claimant claimed he had failed to disclos…
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 Social Security Offset cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The employer/carrier appeal an order in a worker’s compensation case which modified, on grounds of mistake, a prior order fixing claimant’s average weekly wage at $162.50 as stipulated by the parties. The order appealed found claimant’s average weekly wage to be $239.87, based upon claimant’s evidence that he failed to advise his attorney, at the time of stipulation, that he had additional income from part-time employment which could have been added to his regular employment benefits in computing his average weekly wage. Claimant further established that he was unaware that part-time earnings could be considered, and that his attorney had no knowledge of his part-time employment until some three years after the date of the stipulation.
We reverse the order of modification because it is based upon an erroneous interpretation or application of Section 440.28, Florida Statutes (1975), which provides:
Upon a judge’s own initiative or upon the application of any party in interest, on the ground of a change of condition or because of a mistake in the determination of a fact the judge of industrial claims may ... review a compensation case in accordance with the procedure prescribed in respect of claims in s. 440.25 and in accordance with such section, issue a new compensation order which may terminate, continue, reinstate, increase or decrease such compensation, or award compensation ....
The statute permits a modification based upon “a mistake in the determination of a fact.” Here we have no such mistake but merely a failure on the part of the claimant to present evidence which could have been considered in determining a fact, namely, his average weekly wage. The statute contemplates corrections based upon a mistake made by the judge of industrial claims, not by one of the parties or their counsel. Pow er v. Joseph G. Moretti, Inc., 120 So. 2d 443 (Fla.1960); Scotty’s Carpet Service v. McGriff, IRC Order 2-3155 (May 16, 1977); and Amway Corporation v. Yerby, IRC Order 2-3319 (January 16, 1978). The rule is not altered by the circumstance that the initial fact was determined based upon a stipulation of the party. A stipulation should neither be ignored, nor should it be set aside in the absence of fraud, overreaching, misrepresentation, a withholding of facts by the adversary party, or some such element as would render the agreement void. Steele v. A. D. H. Building Contractors, Inc., 174 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1965). Relief by way of modification for mistake cannot be granted merely because different facts presented to the judge might have produced a different result. Amway, supra. Here it was error to hold that the claimant’s unilateral mistake authorized a redetermination of his average weekly wage.
As for the judge’s finding that the modification was not prejudicial to the employer/carrier because it had only'the effect of providing a higher average weekly wage for purposes of offset under Section 440.-15(10)(a), Florida Statutes,1 and that the same result could be accomplished by the claimant’s invocation of -the protective provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 424a and 20 C.F.R. § 404,2 we hold that such a determination is premature. Our reversal is therefore without prejudice to further proceedings when and if the effect of the federal code and regulations becomes a matter ripe for adjudication.
REVERSED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ„ concur. . The judge found no immediate benefit to the claimant because his social security benefits had been temporarily suspended.
. Under the offset statute (Section 440.-15(10)(a), Florida Statutes), the injured worker’s benefits cannot be reduced to a greater extent than they would have been reduced under 42 U.S.C. § 424a, which provides that the basis for the offset shall be average current earnings, defined (20 C.F.R. § 404) as the higher of (a) the average monthly earnings used for computing his primary insurance amount for social security purposes, or (b) the average monthly earnings from covered employment and self-employment during his highest five consecutive years after 1950.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spitzer v. Bartlett Bros. Roofing & Risk Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 437 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…r disputes, if not more, inasmuch as they affect directly the wages of the working man and delay consequently deprives him and his family immediately of the meat and bread to sustain them. (Emphasis supplied) See also, City of Vero Beach v. Thomas, 388 So. 2d 1374, 1376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). In this case, there is no suggestion of fraud, overreaching, misrepresentation, or withholding of facts by the adversary as would render the stipulation void. The employer and carrier voluntarily stipulated to a partial r…
-
I.A.T.S.E. & Claims Ctr. v. Nesselroad, 534 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…e weekly wage, and there being no suggestion or finding by the deputy of fraud, overreaching, misrepresentation, or concealment at the hearing below, Battle v. General Sand and Stone, 478 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), City of Vero Beach v. Thomas, 388 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), the deputy could not vary the amount agreed to as an average weekly wage. Accordingly, on remand we direct that the order be amended to reflect an average weekly wage of $325.55, in accordance with the stipulation. The order be…
-
Emmett H. Massie v. Univ. OF Fla. & Div. of Risk Mgmt., 570 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…cKenney v. School Board of Palm Beach County, 408 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); City of West Palm Beach v. Chisolm, 405 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Heter v. Buning The Florist, 396 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); City of Vero Beach v. Thomas, 388 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Housing By Vogue v. Hendon, 386 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Sheets v. City of Miami, 111 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959); Nix v. Merrill-Stevens Dry Dock & Repair Co., 107 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958), cert. denied, 109 So.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Steele v. A. D. H. Bldg. Contractors, Inc., 174 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1965)
- Power v. Joseph G. Moretti, Inc., 120 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1960)