FLORENE FRUGGIERO, APPELLANT,
v.
BEST WESTERN RESORT INN AND AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Claimant Fruggiero appeals a deputy commissioner's reduction of her workers' compensation benefits by 50% under Florida Statute § 440.15(3)(b)4. The court affirms the reduction while certifying a constitutional question about whether the statute conflicts with the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
The court affirms the 50% reduction of benefits. The equal protection challenge is foreclosed by prior Florida Supreme Court decisions in Morrow v. Amcon Concrete, Inc. and Sasso v. Ram Property Management. The Social Security Act supremacy challenge is controlled by Acosta v. Kraco, Inc., and claimant lacks standing because Section 403(f)(3) only affects persons 65 and older while she is 63. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act challenge is controlled by O'Neil v. Department of Transportation.
[1] A statutory provision reducing workers' compensation benefits for individuals over a certain age does not violate the equal protection clauses of the federal and state co…
[2] A state statute does not violate the federal supremacy clause by conflicting with the Social Security Act when the claimant is not affected by the conflicting provision.
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“Her contention that Section 440.15(3)(b)4. violates the equal protection clauses of both the federal and state constitutions has been rejected by the Florida Supreme Court in Morrow v. Amcon Concrete, Inc., 452 So.2d 934 (Fla.1984), and Sasso v. Ram. Property Management, 452 So.2d 932 (Fla.1984).”
The court rejects the equal protection challenge based on controlling precedent from the Florida Supreme Court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFruggiero received workers' compensation benefits that were reduced by 50% pursuant to Section 440.15(3)(b)4., Florida Statutes. She was 63 years old …
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 Retroactivity Of Statutory Amendments cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Claimant appeals contending the deputy-commissioner erred in reducing the benefits payable to her by fifty percent (50%) in accordance with Section 440.15(3)(b)4., Florida Statutes (Supp.1982).1 Her contention that Section 440.15(3)(b)4. violates the equal protection clauses of both the federal and state constitutions has been rejected by the Florida Supreme Court in Morrow v. Amcon Concrete, Inc., 452 So. 2d 934 (Fla.1984), and Sasso v. Ram. Property Management, 452 So. 2d 932 (Fla.1984).
Next, this court rejected the contention that Section 440.15(3)(b)(3)d. violates the federal supremacy clause because it conflicts with Section 403(f)(3) of the Social Security Act, Title 42, U.S. Code, in Acosta v. Kraco, Inc., 448 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Claimant’s similar challenge to Section 440.15(3)(b)4. is controlled by our decision in Acosta. Moreover, we reject claimant’s constitutional argument for the further reason that claimant does not have standing to raise this issue since she is only 63 years old and Section 403(f)(3) only affects persons 65 and older. See Sasso v. Ram Property Management, 431 So. 2d 204, 208 n. 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Finally, in O’Neil v. Department of Transportation, 442 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), this court addressed and rejected the contention that Section 440.-15(3)(b)(3)d. violates the federal supremacy clause because it conflicts with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C., § 621, et seq. That decision controls claimant’s similar challenge to Section 440.15(3)(b)4. in this ease. Nevertheless, because O'Neil is still pending in the Florida Supreme Court, we certify the following question:
DOES SECTION 440.15(3)(b)4., FLORIDA STATUTES (Supp.1982), VIOLATE THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BECAUSE IT CONFLICTS WITH THE FEDERAL AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT, 29 U.S.C., § 621. ET SEQ.?
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . Section 440.15(3)(b)4. was amended in 1983 to permit for the first time, persons 65 and over and eligible for social security to also obtain wage loss benefits. This court recently held that the amendment was substantive and could not be applied retroactively to accidents occurring prior to the effective date of the amendment. Ralston Purina Company v. Byers, 457 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fred v. Sasso, 431 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Sasso v. RAM Prop. Mgmt. & Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 452 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1984)
- Ralston Purina Co. & Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Byers, 457 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- O'Neil v. Dep't OF Transp. & Crawford & Co., 442 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Acosta v. Kraco, Inc., 448 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Morrow v. Amcon Concrete, Inc., 452 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1984)