LAGO MAR PROPERTIES, INC., AND ADJUSTCO, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
INES MANFRED, 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.
The court held that an award of wage loss benefits as a lump sum advance is improper as it contravenes statutory requirements for monthly payments.
A claimant injured her back at work and was unable to perform her duties. The deputy commissioner ordered various benefits, including wage loss benefi…
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 Wage Loss Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
The claimant in this workers’ compensation appeal injured her back lifting a mattress while working as a maid for Lago Mar. She returned to her job at Lago Mar the next day but found that her back pain prevented her from performing her work. She also tried but was unable to perform maid service for her former landlord. Lago Mar eventually laid her off in June 1985.
Claimant filed a claim for benefits and a hearing was conducted. On February 16, 1988 the deputy commissioner (DC) ordered the employer/carrier to pay certain unpaid medical bills, temporary total disability benefits from December 1, 1985 through March 13, 1987, and wage loss benefits from March 13,1987, “for two years bringing all payments current in one lump sum_” We affirm the DC’s order except for the award of wage loss benefits that constitute a lump sum advance.
The DC’s order providing “wage loss benefits from March 13, 1987, for two years bringing all payments current in one lump sum ...” is in contravention of section 440.20(4), Fla.Stat. (1985). The statute provides that wage loss benefits “shall be paid monthly, subsequent to the termination of the period for which such payments are due_” Id.
Determination of wage loss benefits must be on a month-to-month basis with each month constituting a separate claim, the liability for payment of which accrues monthly. An award of lump sum advance wage loss benefits is improper. Murphree Bridge Corp. v. Brown, 492 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). We affirm that portion of the lump sum wage loss awarded for the period prior to hearing when claimant’s failure to conduct a job search was properly excused and we reverse that portion of the lump sum award that applies to the period after the December 10, 1987 hearing as it permits an unlawful advance of wage loss compensation.
AFFIRMED in part, and REVERSED in part.
BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., 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)…’s obligation to furnish such wage-loss benefits was determined monthly and could end at any time once claimant regained a wage-earning capacity. Thus, there was no fund from which cash could be advanced. Accord Lago Mar Properties, Inc. v. Manfred, 535 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Implicit throughout the Murphree opinion was the court’s assumption that if claimant were allowed a future advance from a nonexistent fund, the employer could be materially prejudiced in any later attempt to obtain repayment, w…
-
In the Interest of G.B. v. State, 576 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…1st DCA 1989), alluded to the necessity for a Richardson inquiry (Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971)), when it is brought to the attention of the trial court that a discovery violation has occurred. The court also, in Sweetland v. State, 535 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), found error in the denial of a continuance in the face of the state’s failure to comply with a discovery request. Here, in addition to all the reasons for demanding compliance with discovery rules stated in those cases, there is…
Authorities Cited
- Murphree Bridge Corp. & United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Olin B. Brown, 492 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)