TROY DESK MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
JACK TROY, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order enforcing a workers' compensation order. The court held that a workers' compensation carrier could not unilaterally suspend payments based on a claimant's increased earnings, even if those earnings would normally disentitle the claimant to benefits, without first seeking modification of the existing order.
The court held that the carrier cannot unilaterally suspend payments. The existing order must be enforced as written until it is modified by the Deputy Commissioner, even if the claimant's circumstances have changed.
[1] A circuit court has jurisdiction to enforce a workers' compensation order that is in full force and effect.
[2] A workers' compensation carrier cannot unilaterally suspend compensation payments based on subsequent events that may affect the claimant's entitlement to benefits.
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 affirm the order granting the claimant-appellee’s rule nisi application under Section 440.24(1), Florida Statutes [*47] (1981), for enforcement of a workers’ compensation order regularly entered by the Deputy Commissioner.”
Establishes the appellate court's decision to uphold the lower court's enforcement order.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA workers' compensation carrier unilaterally suspended weekly permanent and total disability payments to a claimant, asserting that the claimant's sub…
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 Modification Of Compensation Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order granting the claimant-appellee’s rule nisi application under Section 440.24(1), Florida Statutes (1981), for enforcement of a workers’ compensation order regularly entered by the Deputy Commissioner. The order, which required that weekly permanent and total disability payments be made to the claimant during his lifetime, was in full force and effect at the time of the rule nisi application.
Thus, the Circuit Court had jurisdiction and, indeed, was required to enforce the order as written, see Venne v. Kleuver, 435 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Lillard v. City of Miami, 220 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Phoenix Assurance Co. of New York v. Merritt, 160 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963), cert. denied, 168 So. 2d 147 (Fla.1964), notwithstanding the appellant-carrier’s contention that under Section 440.15(l)(d), it was justified in unilaterally suspending compensation to the claimant where subsequent to the entry of the order the claimant had become rehabilitated to the extent that his earnings from employment disentitled the claimant to either compensation payments or any wage loss benefits under Section 440.15(3)(b).
The carrier, in reliance upon the statement in Lister v. Walker, 409 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), that “the off-set [for established earning capacity] is self-executing,” argues that, in a case such as this, it may unilaterally suspend compensation payments and that it is incumbent upon the claimant to seek relief from any wrongful suspension of payments by applying to the Deputy Commissioner rather than seeking enforcement in the Circuit Court of the original order. We believe, to the contrary, that the carrier’s unilateral set-off cannot unilaterally modify the order so as to oust the Circuit Court from its jurisdiction to enforce the order and that the claimant is entitled to have such order enforced until the order has been modified by the Deputy Commissioner pursuant, here, to an application by the carrier. See § 440.28, Fla.Stat. (1981).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami v. Janies Knight, 510 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…to enforce the order and a claimant is entitled to have such order enforced until the order has been modified by the deputy commissioner pursuant to application for modification pursuant to Section 440.28. Troy Desk Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Troy, 448 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The City argues first that, because benefits were paid voluntarily and not pursuant to “a compensation order of a deputy commissioner”, it was not required to seek modification before suspending Knight’s benefits. However, by it…
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. & Metro. Dade Cnty. Self-Insurance v. Rolle, 661 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…hether the compensation order is in full force and effect. “The claimant is entitled to have such order enforced until the order has been modified by the Deputy Commissioner pursuant ... to an application by the carrier.” Troy Desk Mfg. Co. v. Troy, 448 So. 2d 46, 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Even the pendency of a motion for modification cannot defeat enforcement of the order in a rule nisi proceeding because the order remains final and enforceable until the judge of compensation claims enters an order modifying…
-
Pierce v. AETNA Ins. Co., 519 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…ay be necessary to enforce the terms of such order of the deputy commissioner. The cases seem to bear out appellant’s contention that unilateral action is inappropriate in this setting. For example, in Troy Desk Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Troy, 448 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the compensation carrier unilaterally suspended payment of compensation because it felt the claimant had been fully rehabilitated. In affirming issuance of a rule nisi by the circuit court and rejecting the carrier’s contention t…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Phoenix Assurance Co. OF NEW York v. Merritt, 160 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- McPEEK v. Wainwright, 168 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1964)
- Peel v. State, 168 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1964)
- Venne v. Kleuver, 435 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Ervin Dexter Lillard v. City OF Miami, 220 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Lister v. Lavere Walker, 409 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)