DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES, DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT AND STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
EVELYN MCBRIDE, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of an offset for pension benefits against workers' compensation payments. The court found that the employer/carrier failed to meet its burden of proving the pension plan's characteristics necessary to establish entitlement to an offset under Florida law.
The court affirmed the denial of the offset because the employer/carrier failed to carry its burden of proving entitlement to the offset. The court did not reach the broader question of whether a § 440.20(15) offset applies to pension benefits, as the record lacked essential facts about the pension plan's nature and the employee's contributions.
[1] A claimant is entitled to full workers' compensation benefits in addition to benefits from an insurance plan to which the claimant contributed.
[2] Monies received by a claimant from a non-contributory insurance plan should be credited against workers' compensation benefits only to the extent that the combined benefi…
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“No agreement by an employee ... to contribute to a benefit fund . .. for the purpose of providing compensation ... as required by this Chapter shall be valid”
Section 440.21 of Florida Statutes, which prohibits agreements that would effectively reduce workers' compensation benefits through mandatory contributions to benefit funds.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEvelyn McBride received workers' compensation benefits and was also receiving pension benefits. The Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles and …
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 Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Employer/carrier appeal a workers’ compensation order contending, among other issues, that the deputy erred in denying an offset against compensation for pension benefits which claimant is receiving. We conclude that the deputy did not err and we affirm the order appealed.
In Hoagey v. Jewel T. Co. Inc., 235 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1970), the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a claimant is entitled to full workers’ compensation benefits in addition to any benefits under an insurance plan to which the claimant contributed. The court reasoned that a contrary holding would violate § 440.21, Florida Statutes, which provides that:
No agreement by an employee ... to contribute to a benefit fund . .. for the purpose of providing compensation ... as required by this Chapter shall be valid
Subsequently, in Brown v. S.S. Kressge Co. Inc., 305 So. 2d 191 (Fla.1975), the court determined that monies received by a claimant from a non-contributory insurance plan should be credited against workers’ compensation benefits only to the extent that the combined monies exceed a claimant’s average weekly wage. The rulings in Hoagey and Brown effectively synthesize the interplay between § 440.21 and § 440.20(15), which provides that:
When an employee is injured and the employer pays his full wages or ány part thereof during the period of disability . . . the employer shall be entitled to reimbursement to the extent of the compensation paid or awarded .. . provided the employer furnishes satisfactory proof to the judge of such payment ....
Thereafter, in Domutz v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 339 So. 2d 636 (Fla.1976), the court reaffirmed its position and stated that in Brown “the decisive factor was ... whether the combination of benefits from the employer exceeded the claimant’s average weekly wage.” In the Domutz case the court ruled that no offset would be allowed for pension benefits where the combined pension and compensation monies did not exceed a claimant’s average weekly wage; the court expressly noted that it was not determining whether an offset should be allowed for pension (as opposed to insurance) benefits when the combined monies do exceed a claimant’s average weekly wage.
Likewise, in the present case we do not consider whether the § 440.20(15) offset applies upon the payment of pension benefits. The record in this case establishes neither whether the pension plan is contributory or noncontributory, nor the amount of any employee contribution which might have been made. Proving entitlement to an offset is the burden of the party seeking such offset; employer/carrier has failed to carry its burden in this case, and the deputy did not err in denying the claimed offset.
The order appealed is affirmed.
BOOTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gen. Tel. Co. OF Fla. & Kemper Ins. Grp. v. Willcox, 509 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…Brown v. S.S. Kresge Company Inc., 305 So. 2d 191, 194 (Fla.1974). See also Domutz v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, 339 So. 2d 636 (Fla.1976); Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Risk Management v. McBride, 420 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Belle v. General Electric Company, 409 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Based on the above, we conclude we must reverse the deputy’s ruling that he was without jurisdiction as to this issue. Therefore, we remand this case so tha…
-
Grice v. Escambia Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't & Escambia Cnty. Risk Mgmt., 658 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…35 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1969), the court held that the employer cannot deduct from workers’ compensation benefits amounts received by the claimant from an insurance policy to which the claimant has contributed. In Department of Highway Safety v. McBride, 420 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), this court affirmed the ruling of the JCC denying an offset against compensation for pension benefits the claimant was receiving based upon the failure of the E/C to establish by evidence whether or not the pension plan was cont…1 / 3
-
Medina v. Miami Dade Cnty. & Risk Mgmt. of Dade Cnty., 300 So. 3d 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…or dependent in any way upon the existence or nonexistence of a workers’ compensation claim). Proving entitlement to an offset is the burden of the party seeking such offset. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, Div. of Risk Mgmt. v. McBride, 420 So. 2d 897, 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Additionally, an employer must timely raise the defense. See Woods, 586 So. 2d at 418. Here, the Employer did not raise the offset defense, in the event workers’ compensation benefits were awarded, and no evidence was intro…
Authorities Cited
- Vesta Mae Brown v. S. S. Kresge Co., Inc., 305 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1974)
- Jewel TEA Co., Inc. v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n & Arthur Hoagey, 235 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1969)
- Domutz v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 339 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 1976)