MARRIOTT IN-FLIGHT SERVICES, ETC., APPELLANTS,
v.
LUIS ARZA AND NORMA ARZA, HIS WIFE, 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.
This is a workers' compensation appeal regarding whether an employer-carrier's compensation lien claim should be struck in a medical malpractice action arising from employment injury. The court reversed its prior decisions and aligned with the Florida Supreme Court's ruling in Liberty Mutual v. Chambers, holding that compensation liens are not ordinary collateral sources and must be properly fixed.
The court reversed the lower court's order striking the compensation lien and remanded the case with directions to fix an appropriate workers' compensation lien in favor of the employer-carrier, holding that compensation liens are not ordinary collateral sources as previously decided in Coll and Rosabal, but must be treated as established by the Florida Supreme Court in Liberty Mutual v. Chambers.
[1] A prior appellate decision is superseded by a subsequent supreme court decision that changes controlling law.
[2] A workers' compensation lien is permissible in a medical malpractice action arising from an employment-related injury.
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“The order under review, which struck a claim of compensation lien filed by the employer-carrier in a medical malpractice action arising in the course of the plaintiff's employment, although entered in accordance with the then controlling decisions in American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Coll, 479 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 829 (Fla.1986), and Rosabal v. Arza, 495 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), is reversed on the authority of the recent decision of the supreme court in Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chambers, 526 So. 2d 66 (Fla.1988).”
Establishes the core holding that prior precedent is overruled by the Supreme Court's decision in Chambers regarding treatment of workers' compensation liens.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarriott in-flight services (employer-carrier) filed a compensation lien claim in a medical malpractice action brought by plaintiffs Luis and Norma Ar…
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 Double Deduction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellants’ motion for rehearing is granted. Pursuant thereto, the opinion herein dated June 7, 1988, is set aside and the following opinion is substituted in its place:
The order under review, which struck a claim of compensation lien filed by the employer-carrier in a medical malpractice action arising in the course of the plaintiff’s employment, although entered in accordance with the then controlling decisions in American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Coll, 479 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 829 (Fla.1986), and Rosabal v. Arza, 495 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), is reversed on the authority of the recent decision of the supreme court in Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chambers, 526 So. 2d 66 (Fla.1988). In accordance with Chambers, the order below is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to fix an appropriate workers’ compensation lien in favor of the employer-carrier.1
. The plaintiffs point out that, in apparently justified reliance on the Coll and Rosabal decisions, the latter of which involved this very case, they have already reduced their recovery against the third party tortfeasor-physician, treating the compensation lien as if it were an ordinary collateral source. The effect of the Chambers decision that it is not thus would lead to a double deduction against the plaintiffs’ recovery. While we understand the plaintiffs’ dilemma, none of this can affect the rights of the present appellants under Chambers since they were not parties to the prior proceedings either below or on appeal.
However, without in any way indicating what the proper outcome of such actions may be, we specifically indicate that our decision here is without prejudice to any attempt by the plaintiffs to recoup the prior payments to the tortfeasor, either in an independent proceeding, under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1) or (b)(5), or otherwise, in accordance with what Chambers has now established is the prevailing law.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
General Conference OF the Seventh DAY Adventists v. Shanthabai Smith, 528 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…led by the employer in a medical malpractice action arising in the course of the plaintiff’s employment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to fix an appropriate lien in favor of the appellant. Accord Marriott InFlight Servs. v. Arza, 528 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).…
Authorities Cited
- Cook v. McADAM, 479 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- THE Florida BAR v. Capiro, 526 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1988)
- Orestes G. Rosabal, M.D. v. Arza, 495 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)