SPECIAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
E.J. SALES & SERVICE, COTTON STATES INSURANCE COMPANY AND ALPHONSO COOPER, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a workers' compensation order approving a lump sum advance payment because the approval was based on money market considerations rather than the claimant's individual best interests as required by statute.
A lump sum workers' compensation payment cannot be approved based primarily on money market considerations or general financial advantages common to all claimants; the determination must focus on the individual claimant's best interests.
[1] A lump sum workers' compensation payment cannot be approved based primarily on money market considerations or general financial advantages applicable to all claimants; ap…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the stated policy ... that it is in the best interests of the injured worker that he receive disability or wage-loss payments periodically”
Section 440.20(12)(a) expressing the statutory policy favoring periodic payments over lump sums
The Special Disability Trust Fund appealed a workers' compensation order approving a lump sum advance payment to an injured worker. The approval was b…
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 Worker'S Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
The Special Disability Trust Fund appeals a workers’ compensation order by which a lump sum advance payment of compensation benefits was approved. We find that such approval was not in accordance with the applicable standards for lump sum payments, and we therefore reverse the order appealed.
Section 440.20(12)(a), Florida Statutes, expresses “the stated policy ... that it is in the best interests of the injured worker that he receive disability or wage-loss payments periodically.” Lump sum payments are nevertheless permitted in appropriate circumstances, but section 440.20(13)(d), Florida Statutes, requires a determination that a lump sum payment be in the claimant’s “best interests.” In the present case this determination was made upon a finding that the lump sum advance would counteract the effects of inflation, alleviate debt and provide economic peace of mind, and result in a substantial increase in claimant’s monthly income. These factors are predicated upon a disparity between the statutory discount rate and the prevailing money market investment rate, and this advantage would be generally common to all claimants serviced by carriers subject to the same statute in the current financial market. As Jensen Construction Co. v. Sowers, 480 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), indicates, such money market considerations may not serve as the predominant factor motivating a lump sum payment. We therefore conclude that the deputy’s approval of a lump sum payment in the present case was an abuse of discretion.
The order appealed is reversed.
BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Workers OF Fla. & AIG Claim Servs. v. Williams, 743 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…We have considered certain other cases the employer cited in support of its position that reversal is required, e.g., Cochrane Distributing Co. v. Lewis, 504 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), and Special Disability Trust Fund v. E.J. Sales & Service, 497 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), and find them distinguishable in that they involve lump sum advances of more than $2,000. Similarly, cases such as Special Disability Trust Fund v. Myers, 492 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), and Butler’s Dairy, Inc. v. Honeycutt…
-
N. Fla. Erection Co., Inc. v. Eli Abichid, 510 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…serviced by carriers subject to the same statute in the current financial market, and such money market considerations may not serve as the predominant factor motivating a lump sum payment. See Special Disability Trust Fund v. E.J. Sales & Service, 497 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Jensen Construction Co. v. Sowers, 480 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We therefore conclude that the deputy’s approval of a lump sum advance in the present case was an abuse of discretion. The order appealed is reversed. MILL…
-
City OF Miami v. Mercer, 513 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…s in this appeal. Section 440.20(13)(d), Florida Statutes (1985), requires a determination that a lump sum payment be in the claimant’s “best interests.” Special Disability Trust Fund Dept, of Labor and Employment Security v. EJ. Sales and Service, 497 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). While the deputy commissioner has broad discretion in determining what is in the best interests of the claimant, Herndon v. City of Miami, 224 So. 2d 681 (Fla.1969), that discretion is not without limit. Court of Flags v. Outlan…
Authorities Cited
- Hislop v. Bennett, 480 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)