RICHARD POPOVICH, APPELLANT,
v.
OVERLAND TRANSPORT AND INA/AETNA, 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.
In a workers' compensation dispute, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the deputy commissioner's denial of an additional payment to an employee whose PIP insurance carrier paid medical bills when the employer/carrier initially controverted the workers' compensation claim. The court held that the employer/carrier should not be allowed to offset PIP payments against its obligation to pay all medical bills once the injury was found compensable.
The court reversed and held that the deputy commissioner had jurisdiction to award the additional $4,420.80 payment, as such an award merely enforces the initial order requiring payment of all medical bills relating to the compensable injury and does not constitute an improper direct award of medical payments.
[1] An employer/carrier cannot offset payments made by a personal injury protection (PIP) carrier against medical benefits for which the employer/carrier is responsible under…
[2] A deputy commissioner has jurisdiction to award additional benefits when a claimant has not received all benefits due under workers' compensation law due to an improper o…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We agree with the basis of appellant's position that the employer/carrier should not be allowed effectively to achieve an offset of the payments made by the independent PIP carrier against the medical benefits for which employer/carrier has been found by the deputy commissioner to be responsible pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statues.”
Establishes the core principle that the employer/carrier cannot offset independent PIP payments against its statutory obligation to pay medical benefits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichard Popovich was injured in a work-related truck accident. The employer/carrier initially controverted his workers' compensation claim and paid no…
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 Jurisdiction Of Deputy Commissioner cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellant appeals the deputy commissioner’s denial of his claim against appel-lee, employer/carrier, for an additional payment in the amount of $4,420.80. We reverse and remand for entry of an award to appellant in that amount.
Appellant sought the additional payment as reimbursement for payment made by his personal injury protection (PIP) carrier for medical bills he incurred as a result of a work-related truck accident. The PIP carrier paid those medical bills because employer/carrier initially controverted appellant’s workers’ compensation claim and paid no workers’ compensation or medical benefits prior to a hearing on the claim. The PIP carrier also paid appellant $5,238.40 for lost wages until May 1987, when the PIP benefits, which were subject to a $10,000 cap pursuant to section 627.-736(1), Florida Statutes, were exhausted.
The deputy commissioner ultimately found appellant's injury compensable and ordered employer/carrier to pay all medical bills and temporary total disability benefits from the date of the accident and continuing. In compliance with that order, the employer/carrier agreed to pay the remaining outstanding medical bills. Appellant based his claim for an additional payment from employer/carrier on his argument that if employer/carrier had timely paid appellant’s workers’ compensation claim, $4,420.80 of the $10,000 PIP benefits would not have been applied to medical bills and would therefore have been available for additional lost wage payments to appellant. The deputy commissioner denied the claim for the additional payment on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to award any further benefits to appellant.
We agree with the basis of appellant’s position that the employer/carrier should not be allowed effectively to achieve an offset of the payments made by the independent PIP carrier against the medical benefits for which employer/carrier has been found by the deputy commissioner to be responsible pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statues. This situation is obviously distinguishable from those cases involving proper offsets for other types of employer provided benefits. See General Telephone Co. of Florida v. Willcox, 509 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
We recognize that medical payments ordinarily are not to be awarded to a claimant directly. Fred Teitelbaum Construction, Inc. v. Morris, 489 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). However, in the instant case, the award to appellant of an additional $4,420.80 merely is an enforcement of the initial award of the payment of all medical bills relating to the compensable injury. The deputy commissioner did not lack jurisdiction to rule on this claim since appellant has not received all benefits due him under chapter 440 because of the improper offset. Consequently, we reverse and remand for entry of an order awarding appellant an additional $4,420.80 payment from appellee.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SMITH, C.J., and SHIVERS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sarasota Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Gallagher Bassett v. Castagna, 577 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…e the JCC, the JCC should award to claimant all the medical benefits due, subject to a lien in favor of her insurers against the payments due claimant, and she shall insure that those entities are properly reimbursed. Popovich v. Overland Transport, 543 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Sitko, 496 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Greynolds Park Manor v. George, 417 So. 2d 990, appeal after remand, 423 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Claimant is also entitled to seek reimbursement for any am…
Authorities Cited
- Fred Teitelbaum Constr., Inc. v. Sid Morris, 489 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Gen. Tel. Co. OF Fla. & Kemper Ins. Grp. v. Willcox, 509 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)