JAMES E. WHITE AND KATHLEEN E. WHITE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1982-04-08
No. AC-97
SHAW and JOANOS, JJ., and BEN C. WILLIS, Associate Judge, concur.
413 So. 2d 95 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1982) Caution
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

In a workers' compensation case involving equitable distribution of a third-party tortfeasor settlement, the court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to reduce the employer's claim for future compensation benefits to present value before calculating its equitable distribution recovery.


Holding

Yes. The court held that Section 440.39(4)(a) requires that any recovery by the carrier or employer for the payment of future benefits be reduced to present value, and that the portion of equitable distribution allocated for repayment of future benefits must be reduced to present value and retained as a trust fund from which future payments are made.


Headnotes

[1] An employer or workers' compensation carrier seeking equitable distribution from an employee's third-party tort recovery must reduce the present value of future compensat…

[2] Statutory provisions governing equitable distribution in workers' compensation cases, when read in pari materia, require that any recovery allocated for future benefits b…

Previewing 2 of 3 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

Key Quotes

“All amounts paid as compensation and medical benefits under the provision of this law and the present value of all future compensation benefits payable, to be reduced to its present value, and to be retained as a trust fund from which future payments of compensation are to be made”

Establishes statutory requirement that future benefits must be reduced to present value in equitable distribution calculations

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

White was injured in November 1978 while employed by the City of Jacksonville, which began paying workers' compensation benefits. White then sued a th…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

White appeals the trial court’s order for equitable distribution entered subsequent to a workers’ compensation order granting benefits and to the settlement of a personal injury suit. Section 440.39(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1977). Appellant asserts as error the trial court’s failure to reduce to present value the amount to which the employer is entitled as repayment for the payment of future benefits to the employee. We reverse and remand with instructions to the trial court to determine the value of future compensation and to enter an order reducing the carrier’s award to reflect the present value of future compensation to be paid.

White was injured in November, 1978, while in the course and scope of his employment with the City of Jacksonville. Jacksonville began paying workers’ compensation benefits. Appellant then sued a third party and Jacksonville moved for equitable distribution pursuant to Section 440.39, Florida Statutes (1977). The employee recovered damages from the third party. Subsequently, the trial court calculated the amount payable to Jacksonville for benefits already paid and for those which would be due in the future. The trial court then ordered this total amount, not reducing the amount for future benefits to present value, paid to Jacksonville.

Section 440.39(3)(a) and (4)(a), Florida Statutes (1977), provide that the employer or carrier may file a lien in an action instituted by the employee or, in certain circumstances, may itself file suit to recover its prorata share of any recovery obtained in a third party tortfeasor action.

Section 440.39(4)(a), provides the employer or carrier may recover:

All amounts paid as compensation and medical benefits under the provision of this law and the present value of all future compensation benefits payable, to be reduced to its present value, and to be retained as a trust fund from which future payments of compensation are to be made ....

Although Section 440.39(4)(a), addresses only those situations in which the suit is initiated by the employer or carrier, the various parts of that subsection, when read in para materia, require that any recovery by the carrier or employer for the payment of future benefits be reduced to present value.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District, has treated the issue effecting a similar result. See, Ramar-Dooley Construction Co. v. Norris, 341 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977). In Ramar-Dooley, the court affirmed the trial court’s order requiring the employee to keep in escrow a portion of the employee’s award obtained in a third party action to assure repayment of the carrier’s prorata share of future benefits. We note that Section 440.39(4)(a) requires that the portion of the equitable distribution alloted for repayment of future benefits to be reduced to present value and requires that amount to be “retained as a trust fund from which future payments of compensation are to be made. ... ” Accordingly, we adopt the method utilized in Ramar-Dooley for providing repayment to the employer for future compensation benefits. The order below is REVERSED to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion. The cause is REMANDED for recalculation of the amount to be equitably distributed to the City of Jacksonville.

SHAW and JOANOS, JJ., and BEN C. WILLIS, Associate Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Utopia Home Care/Guarantee Ins. Co. v. Alvarez, 230 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)
    …ly referenced within it. See Cecil W. Perry, Inc. v. Lopez, 425 So. 2d 180, 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (reading parts of pertinent subsection of workers’ compensation act in para materia to arrive at proper construction); White v. City of Jacksonville, 413 So. 2d 95, 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (same). The subsections immediately preceding section 440.093(3) emphasize the requirement of an “accompanying physical injury requiring medical treatment” before payment of benefits for mental or nervous injuries is allowed.…
  • Tufco, Inc. v. Jernigan, 533 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
    …420 So. 2d at 375; see also Brandt v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 511 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (employer entitled to withhold pro rata percentage from each future payment). Appellants argue that our decision in White v. City of Jacksonville, 413 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), stands for the proposition that recovery by the carrier of future benefits must be reduced to present value. White, indeed, stands for that proposition, but only under the circumstances present in that case where the trial court…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw