CLIFTON CONSTRUCTION AND ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,

v.

CECIL FLOYD, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT

Citator

Cited By

• Verlin E. Hyatt v. Larson Dairy, Inc., 589 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
  …; and we agree with the judge of compensation claims. “The legislature’s intent to include supplemental benefits within those benefits subject to the 80 percent cap of the social security offset is clear.” Division of Workers’ Compensation v. Hooks, 515 So. 2d 294, 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Hyatt argues that he should receive supplemental benefits in addition to his weekly compensation rate. We construe the order on appeal as so finding. For example, in 1988 Hyatt is entitled to a weekly compensation rate of…
• State of Fla. & Dep't of Ins. v. Herny, 776 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
  …that language in previous decisions suggested (without considering the precise issue raised in Acker) that such a result was required. See, e.g., Hunt v. Stratton, 677 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); State, Division of Workers’ Compensation v. Hooks, 515 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Perhaps it was simply attributable to the fact that Acker did not challenge the inclusion of the first supplemental benefit payment in the offset calculation. In any event, it seems to us that the rationale behind the decisions…
• Jackson v. Hochadel Roofing Co. & Claims Ctr., 794 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
  …year Mr. Jackson became totally and permanently disabled, rather than in 1995, the year Hochadel first became entitled to take the social security disability offset. The basic formula is statutory. See State, Div. of Workers’ Compensation v. Hooks, 515 So. 2d 294, 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (“While ... this court has held that social security cost of living increases ... are not included when computing the 80 percent limitation, we cannot extend those holdings to exclude supplemental benefits from calculation o…