NORTH FLORIDA ERECTION CO., INC., AND AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ELI ABICHID, 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.
North Florida Erection Co. and its workers' compensation carrier appealed an order approving an 80% lump sum advance of compensation payments to an injured worker. The court reversed, holding that the trial judge abused discretion by approving the lump sum based primarily on financial market considerations rather than the statutory "best interests" standard.
Approval of the lump sum advance was an abuse of discretion because money market considerations, while providing a common advantage to all claimants, cannot serve as the predominant factor motivating a lump sum payment approval under the statutory "best interests" standard.
[1] A lump sum advance of workers' compensation payments is permissible only if shown to be in the claimant's best interests.
[2] A disparity between the statutory discount rate and the prevailing money market investment rate is not a predominant factor justifying a lump sum workers' compensation pa…
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 intelligence“Section 440.20(13)(d), Florida Statutes, permits a lump sum advance of compensation payments if such advance is shown to be in the claimant's "best interests."”
Establishes the statutory standard for lump sum advance approvals
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn employee claimed workers' compensation benefits. The trial judge approved an 80% lump sum advance of compensation payments, reasoning that this wou…
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 Abuse Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Employer/carrier appeal a workers’ compensation order by which an 80% lump sum advance of compensation payments 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(13)(d), Florida Statutes, permits a lump sum advance of compensation payments if such advance is shown to be in the claimant’s “best interests.” In the present case this determination was made upon a finding that the lump sum advance would allow claimant to restructure his finances so as to increase his assets and income, thus providing greater economic stability.1 This advantage is essentially predicated upon a disparity between the statutory discount rate and the prevailing money market investment rate.
However, such an advantage is generally common to all claimants 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.
MILLS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. . Claimant’s proposed financial plan assumes that supplemental benefits pursuant to section 440.15(l)(e)l, Florida Statutes, would be unaffected by an 80% lump sum advance. On March 11, 1987 the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workers’ Compensation, issued a declaratory statement denominated "In Re: Petition of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for Declaratory Statement” by which it indicated that supplemental benefits will be porportionally reduced when permanent total disability payments are reduced by a partial lump sum advance. In the present case we do not address the merits of this declaratory statement or the authority of the Division of Workers' Compensation to reduce supplemental benefits.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hislop v. Bennett, 480 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Special Disability Tr. Fund v. E.J. Sales & Serv., 497 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)