EDGEWOOD BOYS' RANCH FOUNDATION AND NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
KEVIN ROBINSON, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1984-09-26
No. AU-330
SHIVERS and WIGGINTON, JJ„ concur.
456 So. 2d 1270 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1984) Positive Treatment
Cited by 7 cases

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.

Synopsis

In this workers' compensation case, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a lump sum award of permanent total disability benefits to a quadraplegic worker. The court rejected the employer's constitutional and statutory arguments, finding that the award was supported by competent evidence and in the worker's best interests.


Holding

The court affirmed the lump sum award of $111,000, holding that the award was in the claimant's best interests, not materially prejudicial to the carrier, and reasonable under the circumstances. The court rejected constitutional and retroactivity arguments on the authority of Cone Brothers Contracting v. Gordon.


Headnotes

[1] A lump sum award of permanent total disability benefits is permissible when it is in the best interests of the claimant, not materially prejudicial to the carrier, and re…

[2] A claimant's financial plan, including the purchase of an annuity and specially adapted housing, may support a finding that a lump sum award is in the claimant's best int…

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

Key Quotes

“a total diminution of wage earning capacity with little chance of returning to gainful employment in a competitive labor market setting”

Deputy's finding regarding Robinson's permanent and total disability status

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Kevin Robinson became a quadraplegic from an industrial accident on August 7, 1975. At age 32, married with an 8-year-old daughter, Robinson petitione…

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.


Opinion of the Court
MILLS, Judge.

MILLS, Judge.

In this workers’ compensation action, Edgewood Boys’ Ranch Foundation and New Hampshire Insurance Company (E/C) appeal a lump sum award of permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. We affirm.

Robinson became a quadraplegic as a result of an industrial accident on 7 August 1975. He is currently 32 years old, married and has an 8-year-old daughter. The parties agree he is permanently and totally disabled. On 22 March 1983, Robinson petitioned for a lump sum advance of PTD benefits. The hearing on the petition was held on 5 May 1983.

Robinson's financial consultant, Turner, testified he had analyzed Robinson’s financial situation and prepared a plan for restructuring income and a financial program for the Robinsons. Turner also testified Robinson’s future PTD benefits reduced to present value equaled $111,000. This figure was based on Robinson’s life expectancy, the 4% statutory discount rate, and his compensation rate of $105 per week.

The financial plan was admitted into evidence. It was structured around the pur chase of a $50,000, 30-year annuity and a new house specially constructed to accommodate Robinson’s physical condition. The plan provides for a net increase in spendable income of $569 per month.

Both Robinson and his wife testified they felt the lump sum advance would be in their best interests. Robinson testified the specially designed home would allow him greater independence.

Dr. O’Conner, Robinson’s original attending physician, prepared a report stating Robinson should have a normal life expectancy. This report was admitted into evidence at the hearing. The E/C presented no evidence concerning Robinson’s life expectancy.

By order dated 14 July 1983, the deputy granted the petition. He found Robinson has “a total diminution of wage earning capacity with little chance of returning to gainful employment in a competitive labor market setting.” The deputy also found the lump sum award would not materially prejudice the rights of the E/C, would be in the best interests of the claimant, and reasonable under the circumstances. The deputy ordered the E/C to pay Robinson $111,-000 as a lump sum advance of PTD benefits, “said money to be utilized for those purposes set forth in the investment plan and testimony at this hearing.”

The E/C argue: (1) Section 440.20(10), Florida Statutes (1975), is unconstitutional as applied; (2) the lump sum award is not in the best interests of the claimant, materially prejudicial to the carrier, and unreasonable under the circumstances; and (3) the 1983 amendments to Section 440.20(12) and (13), Florida Statutes (1979), Chapter 83-305, Laws of Florida, operate retroactively. We affirm on authority of Cone Brothers Contracting v. Gordon, 453 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)1 .

In Gordon, the same arguments advanced in this case for the unconstitutionality of Section 440.20(10), Florida Statutes (1975), and the retroactivity of the 1983 amendments were rejected. The deputy’s findings that the award is in the best interests of the claimant, not materially prejudicial to the E/C, and reasonable under the circumstances are supported by competent substantial evidence.

AFFIRMED.

SHIVERS and WIGGINTON, JJ„ concur. . We note a petition for review of our decision in Gordon by the Florida Supreme Court was filed on 24 August 1984.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Esis/ACE Am. Ins. Co. & Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Kuhn, 104 So. 3d 1111 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
    …v. Jones, 496 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (generating more disposable income via purchase of annuity insufficient basis for advance). . As one example under the lump sum advance statute, this Court in Edgewood Boys' Ranch Foundation v. Robinson, 456 So. 2d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), held it was in a claimant's best interests to award an advance to perform renovations to his home to accommodate his disabilities.…
  • …rsely to the [*30] E/C s position herein and we therefore decline to address them further. See Cone Brothers Contracting v. Gordon, 453 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) cert. den. 461 So. 2d 113 (Fla.1985); Edgewood Boys’ Ranch Foundation v. Robinson, 456 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) cert. den. 462 So. 2d 1106 (Fla.1985). We must reverse, however, with regard to the deputy’s finding that the lump sum award would be in claimant Walters’ best interest. The record below reveals that, as a part of her pre-award…
  • Oliver B. Cannon & Sons, Inc. v. Maxwell Crosby, 481 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
    …cial security, which was the premise for the award. The order of the deputy commissioner is REVERSED. Claimant’s unauthorized reply brief is stricken. BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS, J., concur. . See generally 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…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw