SOUTHERN SEAFOOD AND NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ELIZABETH FREY, 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 case, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed an award of wage loss benefits to an injured employee but reversed the lower court's denial of a credit for overpaid temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, finding the TTD award lacked evidentiary support.
The court held that the TTD award was not supported by competent substantial evidence because Dr. Stalnaker's testimony showed claimant was capable of working by late March 1982. The court reversed the denial of credit for overpaid benefits, finding that the employer/carrier had a reasonable basis for the overpayment and should receive credit for the overpaid TTD amount against wage loss benefits.
[1] An overpayment of workers' compensation benefits is presumed to be a gratuity unless a reasonable basis for the overpayment is found.
[2] A deputy commissioner may allow an overpayment of compensation to be applied as a credit against compensation ultimately found to be due if a reasonable basis for the ove…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 are unable to locate competent substantial evidence in the record to support this finding.”
The court's conclusion that the deputy commissioner's award of TTD benefits for March, April, and May 1982 lacked evidentiary support.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElizabeth Frey, the claimant, was injured and received workers' compensation benefits. The deputy commissioner awarded TTD benefits for March, April, …
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 Wage Loss Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
In this worker’s compensation case, the employer and carrier (“E/C”) question the propriety of an award of wage loss benefits, the procedure followed by the deputy commissioner in ruling on the claim and on a recusal motion, the deputy’s decision to seek further medical evidence regarding claimant’s impairment status, and the treatment of E/C’s claim for credit for overpayment of temporary total disability (“TTD”) benefits. We affirm on all issues except the matter of the TTD benefits.
As the basis for finding that claimant was entitled to TTD benefits in March, April, and May, 1982, the deputy found that Dr. Stalnaker stated it would have been medically inadvisable for claimant to return to work during these months. We are unable to locate competent substantial evidence in the record to support this finding. Dr. Stalnaker, claimant’s treating physician, testified that when he first saw claimant in March, 1982, she could not have carried on with her employment, but by March 26, 1982, she had improved enough so that she probably could have worked. He also said there were several days in July, 1982, not within the pertinent time period of this issue, when she was hospitalized for a medication reaction and could not have worked, but other than those times if she avoided exposure to the substance to which she was allergic, she was capable of some form of gainful employment. During the time in question, claimant made no conscientious effort to return to work. Under these circumstances, the deputy’s finding claimant was entitled to TTD benefits in March, April, and May, 1982, is not supported by competent substantial evidence, thus there was an overpayment of compensation benefits.
An overpayment of compensation is presumed to be a gratuity absent a finding that a reasonable basis exists for the overpayment. “If the Deputy finds such a basis the presumption is dissipated and he may allow the overpayment to be applied as a credit against compensation ultimately found to be due even though the compensation may be of another class,” Belam Florida Corp. v. Dardy, 397 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In the present order, the deputy commissioner found that E/C reasonably believed that the claimant was TTD during the time in question. Therefore credit should have been given.
Reversed and remanded with directions for credit to be given toward wage loss benefits in the amount overpaid for TTD benefits. In all other respects, the order is affirmed. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ„ concur.