ELIZABETH MENDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CO., SELF-INSURED, 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.
Appellant Mendez appealed a workers' compensation deputy commissioner's denial of her claim for penalties, interest, and attorney's fees for allegedly late payment by her employer. The court affirmed, holding that the employer's payment obligation arose from the date the settlement order was mailed to the parties, not from the date the settlement was orally announced as final at the hearing.
The court held that the employer's obligation to pay benefits arose on the date copies of the deputy commissioner's order were mailed to the parties, not from the oral announcement of finality at the hearing. Since payment was made within 20 days of that mailed order date, it was timely and no penalties, interest, or attorney's fees were due.
[1] A workers' compensation employer's obligation to pay benefits under a settlement agreement arises upon the entry and mailing of the deputy commissioner's order approving…
[2] The twenty-day period for timely payment of workers' compensation benefits, triggering penalties for late payment, begins to run from the date of mailing of the deputy co…
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“We agree with the deputy commissioner that the obligation to pay benefits arose on the date copies of the order were mailed to the parties, as provided in Section 440.-25(4)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1978).”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that the mailing date of the formal order, not the oral announcement, triggers the payment obligation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMendez and her employer FPL presented a settlement agreement at a December 4, 1981 hearing, which the deputy commissioner announced as final on the re…
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 Washout Settlement cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellant/claimant appeals the deputy commissioner’s order denying her claim for penalties, interest, and attorney’s fees for failure of appellee/employer to pay timely workers’ compensation benefits due appellant in accordance with a settlement agreement. We affirm.
On December 4, 1981, when appellant’s claim for benefits was presented to the deputy commissioner for final hearing, the parties presented a washout settlement, pursuant to Section 440.20(10), Florida Statutes (Supp.1978), the terms of which were set forth on the record before the deputy commissioner. Appellant accepted the settlement before the deputy commissioner under oath. The deputy made the following finding on the record:
Okay, I find the settlement to be in claimant’s best interest and do hereby approve it under [Workers’ Compensation] Rule 13. It is a final settlement as of now.
Appellant signed the stipulation and joint petition on December 18,1981. The deputy approved the agreement by order entered on December 22, 1981. Appellee received the benefits due under the agreement by a check dated January 5, 1982.
On February 26, 1982, appellant filed a claim for penalties, interest, and attorney’s fees, asserting that since the deputy announced at the December 4 hearing that the settlement was final at that time and because the settlement was validated by having been dictated on the record,1 the twenty-day time period during which benefits should have been paid pursuant to Section 440.20(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1978) began to run on December 5 and thus had expired by the time payment was received on January 5.2 The deputy commissioner ruled that appellee became obligated to pay benefits only upon the entry and mailing to the parties of the December 22 order. Thus, the time period began to run as of that date.
We agree with the deputy commissioner that the obligation to pay benefits arose on the date copies of the order were mailed to the parties, as provided in Section 440.-25(4)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1978). Section 440.20(10), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1978)3 provided that upon joint petition of all interested parties, if a deputy finds that it is in the best interests of the claimant, he may “enter a compensation order approving and authorizing the discharge of the liability of the employer .... ” It further provides that when the claimant is represented by counsel, final approval of the lump sum settlement agreement “shall be approved by entry of an order within seven days of the filing of such joint petition and stipulation .... ” (Emphasis supplied). The clear intent of those statutes is that the filed stipulation and joint petition for settlement agreement be approved by the deputy by order prior to the obligations becoming due and effective.
Payment was made by appellee within twenty days of the date of the mailing of deputy commissioner’s order. Therefore, payment was made timely and penalties, interest, and attorney’s fees are not due appellant.
AFFIRMED.
JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur. . Fla.W.C.R.P. 13 (1981).
. Section 440.20(6), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1978) provided that penalties are due if compensation benefits are not paid within twenty days of an award. Section 440.20(7), Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1978) provided for the payment of interest when compensation is not paid timely. Section 440.20(8), Fla.Stat. (1981) provides that penalties are owed if payment is not made within thirty days of an award. The provision for interest now is contained in Section 440.20(9), Fla.Stat. (1981).
.Now codified in 440.20(12)(b), Fla.Stat. (1981).