EXXON COMPANY, U.S.A., APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK ORLANDO, 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.
Employer's appeal of lump-sum workers' compensation advance is granted because the claimant failed to demonstrate that the advancement was in his best interest beyond merely obtaining a higher interest rate on the funds.
A lump-sum advance in workers' compensation must be supported by substantial justification beyond the claimant's ability to earn a higher interest rate on the advanced funds to satisfy the statutory requirement that it be in the claimant's best interest.
[1] A lump-sum advance in workers' compensation must be justified by substantial evidence beyond the claimant's opportunity to earn a higher interest rate on the advanced fun…
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 intelligence“the mere fact that the claimant can receive a higher interest rate upon the advanced funds, and thus a better return on his expected benefits, is insufficient to demonstrate that the lump-sum payment is in his best interest”
Court's explanation of why interest rate differential alone cannot justify lump-sum advancement
Exxon sought to reverse a deputy's approval of a $23,686 lump-sum advance to claimant Orlando in a workers' compensation case.…
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 Workers' Compensation Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, GUYTE P., Jr. (Retired), Associate Judge.
In this workers’ compensation appeal the employer contends that the deputy erred in approving for claimant a lump-sum advance of $23,686. We agree and reverse.
Before approving such an advancement, the deputy must determine that it is in the best interest of the claimant, is reasonable under the circumstances of the case, and will not materially prejudice the rights of the employer/carrier. §§ 440.-20(12)(a) and (d), Fla.Stat. (1981). The operative inquiry is whether the advancement is in “the best interest of the person entitled to compensation,” and the mere fact that the claimant can receive a higher interest rate upon the advanced funds, and thus a better return on his expected benefits, is insufficient to demonstrate that the lump-sum payment is in his best interest, see Court of Flags v. Outland, 382 So. 2d 443, 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), just as it is insufficient to demonstrate material prejudice to the employer/carrier. See Sanford v. Alachua County School Board, 425 So. 2d 112, 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Since the claimant has advanced no substantial justification for this lump-sum payment other than that he can receive this higher interest rate, we must conclude that the award is not supported by substantial competent evidence.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MILLS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cochrane Distrib. Co. & Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 504 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…the claimant would receive a higher interest rate upon the advanced funds, and a better return on his expected benefits. This is insufficient to demonstrate that the lump sum payment is in claimant’s best interest. Exxon Company, U.S.A. v. Orlando, 444 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The interest market has not opened up as the deputy speculated; indeed, it has fallen to about one-half of the 10.17% the claimant allegedly could have earned at the time of the hearing. The deputy, apparently relying on the te…
-
Oliver B. Cannon & Sons, Inc. v. Maxwell Crosby, 481 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…y Edgewood Boys Ranch Foundation v. Robinson, 456 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); American Mutual Insur. Co. v. Patrick, 453 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Cone Bros. Contracting v. Gordon, 453 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Exxon Co. v. Orlando, 444 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Sanford v. Alachua County School Boards, 425 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).…
Authorities Cited
- Court OF Flags & Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Outland, 382 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Nieda Sanford v. Alachua Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Kemper Ins. Co., 425 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)