JOHN BEAUREGARD, APPELLANT,
v.
COMMONWEALTH ELECTRIC AND AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO., 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed that workers' compensation permanent impairment benefits of $1,200 for loss of sight in one eye do not violate the Florida Constitution, rejecting the argument that such benefits are inadequate compared to pre-1979 levels or common law damages.
Workers' compensation permanent impairment benefits under Florida Statutes section 440.15(3)(a) are constitutional and need not equal common law damages for similar injuries.
[1] Workers' compensation permanent impairment benefits are designed to compensate for loss of earning capacity rather than to provide tort-equivalent damages and do not viol…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA 54-year-old worker lost all sight in one eye due to an industrial accident and received $1,200 in permanent impairment benefits under the 1981 worke…
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 Impairment Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.
Appellant, 54 years of age, lost all sight in one eye as a result of an industrial acci-' dent. His claims for medical, rehabilitative and wage-loss benefits were apparently honored, or at least not contested in these proceedings before the deputy. He has received permanent impairment benefits of $1,200 in accordance with section 440.-15(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), and he asserts that the benefits provided in that class by the 1981 statute are so paltry as to deny him redress for his injury. Art. I, sec. 21, Fla.Const. As points of comparison he points to pre-1979 benefits of “at least $10,-000” and to common law judgments, for loss of an eye due to another’s negligence, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. 5 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts Ann. (Supp.1980). Ap-pellees respond to the effect that legislation like chapter 440 is designed to compensate principally for loss of earning capacity or earnings. 2 LARSON’S WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, § 57.11 (1982); Magic City Bottle and Supply Co. v. Robinson, 116 So. 2d 240, 243 (Fla.1959).
We adhere to this court’s decision in Mahoney v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 419 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), pet. for rev. granted, Fla. Supreme Court Case No. 62,721, holding that this law is constitutional.
AFFIRMED.
WIGGINTON, J., concurs.
BOOTH, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Newton v. McCOTTER Motors, Inc., 475 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1985)…rcent of wage loss benefits at age sixty-two when the employee is receiving social security benefits was held constitutional). See also Mahoney v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 419 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); and Beauregard v. Commonwealth Electric, 440 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (upholding section 440.15(3)(a)l (1980) and (1981), which placed a dollar cap on eye injuries to the extent that, the claimants argued, the benefits provided were so paltry as to deny them redress for their injuries, as provided…
-
Special Disability Tr. Fund v. Siesta Lago Mobile Homes & St. Paul Fire Ins. Co., 473 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…was continued at Siesta Lago after the ownership transfer. The employer/ carrier has failed to prove entitlement to reimbursement from the Fund. A limited exception to the knowledge requirement is found in Special Disability Trust Fund v. Wheeler, 440 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), which appellees seek to have applied to the facts herein. Wheeler represents a situation in which an ongoing business contractually delegates the hiring of its employees to a union hall. This case is patently distinguishable fro…
-
McCOTTER Motors, Inc. v. Newton, 453 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…rcent of wage loss benefits at age sixty-two when the employee is receiving social security benefits was held constitutional]. See also Mahoney v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 419 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); and Beauregard v. Commonwealth Electric, 440 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) [upholding section 440.15(3)(a)1 (1980) and (1981), which placed a dollar cap on eye injuries to the extent that, the claimants argued, the benefits provided were so paltry as to deny them redress for their injuries, as provided…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Kimbro, 116 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 1959)
- Mahoney v. Sears, 419 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)