MARION CHANCEY, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES AND THE HARTFORD, 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.
Chancey appeals the denial of his temporary total disability benefits claim, arguing that his employer improperly reduced his accumulated sick leave. The court reverses, holding that sick leave can only be charged in proportion to the supplemental wages actually paid by the employer, and that the deputy commissioner had jurisdiction over the claim.
The employer should only be allowed to charge sick leave time in proportion to the amount of supplemental benefits it paid. The deputy commissioner had jurisdiction over the claim. The proportionate reduction standard prevents an impermissible setoff against sick leave benefits already earned.
[1] An employer may only reduce an employee's sick leave time in proportion to the amount of benefits paid by the employer to the employee.
[2] A deputy commissioner has jurisdiction over claims seeking restoration of sick leave time.
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“We hold that Florida Public Utilities should be allowed to charge Chancey with sick leave time only in proportion to the amount of benefits it paid to Chancey. Otherwise, it is clear that Florida Public Utilities would be allowed an impermissible setoff against the other five and one-third hours per day in sick leave benefits which Chancey had already earned by reason of his past service.”
Establishes the core holding that sick leave reduction must be proportionate to supplemental wages paid, not the full daily amount.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChancey suffered a compensable work injury on January 29, 1980. During periods of temporary total disability, he received 100% of his wages (two-third…
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 Jurisdiction Of Deputy Commissioner cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Chancey appeals the final order of the deputy commissioner denying his claim for temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. We reverse.
Chancey suffered a compensable injury on 29 January 1980. There were several periods of TTD, during which he received his full wages rather than two-thirds of his average weekly wages as required under Section 440.15(2), Florida Statutes (1979). The additional one-third of his wages was paid by Florida Public Utilities pursuant to a provision in Chancey’s contract of employment.
Because Chancey was being paid 100 percent of his wages, Florida Public Utilities reduced his accumulated sick leave time at a rate of eight hours per day for each day he was out of work rather than in proportion to the additional one-third of Chancey’s wages that were being paid. A proportionate reduction would have resulted in a two and two-thirds hour per day reduction instead of an eight hour per day reduction.
All of Chancey’s accumulated sick leave time was exhausted by 18 April 1982. After that date, he received only the two-thirds of his wages due as TTD benefits.
After a hearing, the deputy commissioner concluded that Chancey was seeking restoration of his sick leave time and that he did not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. He also concluded that “[t]he claimant has failed to establish that the contractual agreement between the Union and Florida Public Utilities represents a scheme through which the employee was compelled to contribute to his workers’ compensation premium.” Presumably, this was a finding that the procedures used in this case did not violate Section 440.21, Florida Statutes (1979).
We hold that Florida Public Utilities should be allowed to charge Chancey with sick leave time only in proportion to the amount of benefits it paid to Chancey. Otherwise, it is clear that Florida Public Utilities would be allowed an impermissible setoff against the other five and one-third hours per day in sick leave benefits which Chancey had already earned by reason of his past service. Brown v. S.S. Kresge Co., Inc., 305 So. 2d 191 (Fla.1975).
We further hold that the deputy commissioner had jurisdiction of this claim. Jewel Tea Co., Inc. v. Florida Industrial Commission, 235 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1970).
The order is reversed and the cause remanded to the deputy commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Chancey’s motion for attorney’s fees is provisionally granted in the amount 0f $2,000 contingent upon a finding of bad faith by the deputy commissioner,
ERVIN and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barragan v. City OF Miami, 545 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1989)…nsation to offset illegal deductions made on the account of the payment of workers’ compensation benefits. Marion Correctional Inst. v. Kriegel, 522 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 531 So. 2d 1354 (Fla.1988); Chancey v. Florida Pub. Utils., 426 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); see Jewel Tea Co. v. Florida Ind. Comm’n, 235 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1969). Also, we are not persuaded by the city’s argument that its pension fund was an indispensable party. After all, the city is responsible for the payment of both…
-
Williams v. City OF Fort Walton Beach, 691 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…mm'n, 235 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1969); Marion Correctional Inst. v. Kriegel, 522 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 531 So. 2d 1354 (Fla.1988); General Tel. Co. of Fla. v. Willcox, 509 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Chancey v. Florida Pub. Utils., 426 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). But see TRW, Inc. v. Betts, 407 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The City has paid workers’ compensation benefits in full in the present case. The claimant contends that the judge of compensation claims should award “full pay sta…
-
Gen. Tel. Co. OF Fla. & Kemper Ins. Grp. v. Willcox, 509 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…) (Determination of claimant’s rights to compensation under Chapter 440, Florida Statutes requires consideration of § 440.21 Florida Statutes1 and is within the jurisdiction of the deputy commissioners.) See also Chancey v. Florida Public Utilities, 426 So. 2d 1140 (Fla 1st DCA 1983), where this [*1273] court held that the Florida Public Utilities could only charge claimant with sick leave time in proportion to the amount of benefits it paid to claimant, and where this court expressly held that the deputy had…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities 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)