SAMUEL STIDHAM, EMPLOYEE, ST. PETERSBURG JUNIOR COLLEGE AND GALLAGHER BASSETT INS. SERVICE, EMPLOYER/CARRIER, APPELLANTS,
v.
SPECIAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND, 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 dissenting opinion argues that the deputy commissioner correctly denied a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, finding that negotiations between counsel and payment of compensation constituted sufficient action under Rule 11(b).
The dissenting judge would find that the deputy commissioner properly denied the motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, as evidence of negotiations and payment of compensation showed good cause for the claim to remain pending.
[1] A Special Disability Trust Fund may dispute the factual predicate for the classification of future benefits in a settlement order, even if the Fund was not a party to the…
[2] An employer/carrier must demonstrate by competent and substantial evidence that future temporary compensation benefits are reasonably related to potential future temporar…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe employer/carrier moved to dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute, alleging no action was taken for over two years. The deputy commissioner denie…
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 Special Disability Trust Fund Reimbursement cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Employer/carrier seek review of a workers’ compensation order by which the Special Disability Trust Fund was directed to reimburse employer/carrier $9,000 of the $15,000 paid by employer/carrier to claimant for settlement of his future compensation benefits. The order found that employer/carrier was not entitled to reimbursement from the Special Disability Trust Fund for a part of its claim because:
[T]he employer/servicing-agent has failed to show by competent and substantial evidence that the $8,821.28 that it has classified as future temporary compensation benefits in the joint petition and stipulation is reasonably related to any temporary disability periods that the employee may have in the future.
We affirm.
Appellants argue that the order is in error in alternatively stating: For the purposes of Fund reimbursement cases, future compensation benefits that are being settled by joint petition and stipulation are future permanent wage loss benefits as a matter of law.
See Emergency-One Inc. v. Williams, 431 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The Fund’s argument here concedes that the classification issue is factual, but the fund was not a party to the settlement and was therefore properly permitted in this proceeding, to dispute the factual predicate for the classification of future benefits in the settlement order. § 440.49(2)(g), Florida Statutes. The deputy’s resolution of those factual issues is adequately supported by the record, but we find the sentence last above quoted to be misleading. The order is therefore amended to remove that language, and, as amended, is affirmed.
JOANOS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Emergency ONE, Inc. v. Kenith V. Williams, 431 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)