STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF FAMILY SERVICES AND NATIONAL LOSS CONTROL SERVICE CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARGARITA VARELA AND THE DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, 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.
An employer/carrier appealed a compensation order, challenging the deputy commissioner's failure to determine whether overpayment of temporary total disability (TTD) benefits was reasonable and to credit any overpayments against continuing benefits. The court agreed the deputy erred and remanded for proper calculation and credit determination.
The employer/carrier was entitled to have the deputy determine whether overpayment of TTD benefits was reasonable, and if so, to credit any overpayments against continuing TTD benefits or unpaid PPD benefits. Any overpayment exceeding remaining disability benefits due would be considered gratuitous and unrecoverable by the employer/carrier.
[1] An employer/carrier is entitled to credit for overpayment of temporary total disability benefits if the overpayment was reasonably made.
[2] A deputy commissioner errs by failing to determine if there was a reasonable basis for an overpayment of temporary total disability benefits.
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 deputy erred in failing to determine whether there was a reasonable basis for the overpayment, and in failing to allow the E/C to credit any overpayments found to have been reasonably made against continuing TTD or unpaid permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits”
Establishes the core error requiring reversal and remand
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant suffered an industrial injury in 1974 and was found to have reached maximum medical improvement in 1977 with 50% permanent disability. The em…
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 Permanent Partial Disability (Ppd) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The employer/carrier (E/C) bring this appeal from a compensation order issued upon claimant’s petition for modification of a pri-or order. The E/C assert that the deputy commissioner (deputy) erred in several respects, among them, by failing to find that the E/C are entitled to receive credit for overpayment of temporary total disability (TTD) benefits during the period from June 19, 1980 to February 28, 1981. We agree that the deputy erred in failing to determine whether there was a reasonable basis for the overpayment, and in failing to allow the E/C to credit any overpayments found to have been reasonably made against continuing TTD or unpaid permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits. We find the remaining issues raised by appellant to be without merit.
Claimant’s industrial injury occurred in 1974, and in 1978 claimant was found by the Judge of Industrial Claims to have reached maximum medical improvement on November 7,1977, with a 50% permanent disability of the body as a whole. The E/C thereafter commenced payment of PPD benefits. On June 19, 1980 claimant had to be re-hospitalized for treatment of accident-related injuries, and the E/C commenced payment of TTD benefits on that date and continuing through the date of the hearing. However, uncontradicted evidence in the record reveals that claimant returned to work around August 1, 1980, and worked fairly regularly thereafter until November 16, 1980 when she entered the hospital for non-accident related medical treatment. The claimant was not entitled to receive TTD benefits for the periods when she was working or was disabled as the result of noncom-pensable medical problems, and, indeed, she only claimed entitlement to nine weeks of TTD benefits for the period from June 1980 to February 1981.
Accordingly, the case is remanded with instructions to the deputy to calculate the amount of the TTD benefits to which claimant was entitled during the period in issue and, if overpayment was reasonable, to allow the E/C to credit any overpayment against claimant’s continuing TTD benefits, if any, or against any as yet unpaid PPD benefits. Belam Florida Corporation v. Dardy, 397 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). If the claimant is no longer receiving temporary disability benefits, and if the amount of the E/C’s overpayment exceeds the amount of permanent benefits which remain unpaid, if any, such portion of the overpayment as exceeds the amount of disability benefits remaining due shall be considered gratuitous and may not be recovered by the E/C. AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED.
MILLS, BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Structural Sys., Inc. v. Worthen, 463 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…y found to be due, even though such compensation is of another class, if a reasonable basis exists for such overpayment. Belam Florida Corporation v. Dardy, 397 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); State of Florida, Division of Family Services v. Varela, 418 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Clearly a reasonable basis for the overpayment existed, in that at the time of the agreement, claimant’s final disability had not yet been solely attributed to the earlier accidents. [*510] I recognize that the instant cause inv…
-
Gill v. U.S. Agri-Chemicals, 561 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…against any future disability benefits which may become due. Such crediting, which involves different categories of benefits, requires that there be a reasonable basis for the prior overpayment. See e.g., State Division of Family Services v. Varela, 418 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The evidence presented below includes circumstances which might be construed as involving fraudulent misrepresentation by claimant. The judge has broad authority in such instances. See Morgan Yacht Corp./Beatrice Foods v. Edward…
-
Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. & Whiting Nat'l Servs. v. Walker, 422 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…sion by this court to the contrary. Id. at 758. When the e/c seeks a credit for overpayment, it is incumbent on the deputy to determine whether a reasonable basis exists for such overpayment. State of Florida, Division of Family Services v. Varela, 418 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Accordingly, we reverse paragraph 16 of the deputy’s order and remand this case with directions to the deputy to calculate the amount of wage-loss benefits which were paid to claimant from May 8, 1981 through September 17, 1981…
Authorities Cited
- Belam v. Dardy, 397 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)