SUN PAC FOODS, INC. AND POE RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARY F. SKINKLE BRUMBLES, 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.
Sun Pac Foods and its insurance carrier appealed a workers' compensation order awarding the claimant a partial lump-sum advance of permanent total disability benefits, a change in attendant care benefits, and retaining jurisdiction over attorney fees. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the deputy commissioner's decision, finding it supported by competent evidence and in the claimant's best interest.
The court affirmed all three determinations: the lump-sum advance was warranted under Florida law because it was in the claimant's best interest, would not materially prejudice the employer/carrier, and was reasonable; the change in attendant care was supported by competent evidence showing the claimant's family would provide extraordinary services; and the attorney fee authorization was proper with retained jurisdiction for subsequent determination of amount and applicability to other litigated issues.
[1] A partial lump-sum advance of future permanent total disability benefits may be awarded if it is in the claimant's best interest, will not materially prejudice the employ…
[2] A deputy commissioner has the discretion to change attendant care benefits when competent, substantial evidence supports the claimant's need for such a change.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Record evidence shows that this award is in claimant's best interest, will not materially prejudice the employer/carrier, and is reasonable under the circumstances.”
Establishes the three-part test for approving lump-sum advances of disability benefits under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant was awarded permanent total disability benefits in a workers' compensation case. The deputy commissioner granted a partial lump-sum advan…
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
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of a workers’ compensation order awarding claimant a partial lump-sum advance of permanent total disability benefits, granting claimant’s request for a change in attendant care benefits, and retaining jurisdiction over attorney fees. We affirm.
There is no merit to the employer/carrier’s argument that the deputy commissioner erred in awarding claimant a partial lump-sum advance of her future permanent and total disability benefits pursuant to Section 440.20(13), Florida Statutes (1979). Record evidence shows that this award is in claimant’s best interest, will not materially prejudice the employer/carrier, and is reasonable under the circumstances. Ventura v. Palm Springs General Hospital, 463 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Competent, substantial evidence supports the deputy’s finding that claimant was in need of a change in attendant care benefits. This evidence shows that claimant’s family will be “on call” to provide extraordinary services for claimant. See Armador v. Parts Depot, Inc., 508. So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Datton v. Orange County Sheriff, 503 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); and Standard Blasting and Coating v. Hayman, 476 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The deputy did not abuse his discretion in making a change which will save the employer/carrier approximately $94 per week.
The deputy correctly found that claimant is authorized to pay her attorney a reasonable fee for establishing her need for a partial lump-sum advance pursuant to Section 440.34(2), Florida Statutes (1979). In making this decision, the deputy properly retained jurisdiction to approve the amount of the fee at a later date. See Adelman Pipe and Steel Co. v. Vasquez, 487 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). We note that the language of the deputy’s order did not determine that claimant is entitled to attorney fees as to issues litigated which were not related to the partial lump-sum advance pursuant to Section 440.34(2), Florida Statutes (1979). Instead, the deputy properly retained jurisdiction to make this determination after a subsequent hearing on attorney fees.
We affirm the order below. On remand, the deputy shall determine the amount claimant shall pay her attorney for securing the partial lump-sum advance and whether claimant is entitled to attorney fees as to other litigated issues.
BOOTH, WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Standard Blasting & Coating & Claims Ctr. v. Hayman, 476 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Dalton v. Orange Cnty. Sheriff & U.S. Ins. Grp., 503 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Alphonse Della-Donna v. Gore Newspapers Co., 463 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Adelman Pipe & Steel Co. & Claims Ctr. v. Vasquez, 487 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)