DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT, PETITIONER,
v.
MURIEL WILCOX, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court held that the offset provision in section 440.15(9) of the Florida Statutes, which reduces workers' compensation benefits by the amount that combined workers' compensation and social security benefits exceed eighty percent of average weekly wage, is self-executing and may be taken unilaterally by an employer without requiring authorization from a deputy commissioner. The Court reversed the Third District Court of Appeal's decision requiring deputy commissioner approval for the setoff.
The offset provision in section 440.15(9) is self-executing in nature and therefore can be taken unilaterally by the employer without requiring a modification proceeding before a deputy commissioner. The mandatory language of the statute and the parallel federal statute support administrative implementation of the setoff.
[1] A workers' compensation offset provision requiring reduction of benefits when combined with social security benefits is self-executing and may be taken unilaterally by th…
[2] An employer may unilaterally reduce workers' compensation benefits based on social security benefits received by the employee, without prior authorization from a deputy c…
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 offset is mandatory if the combined benefits exceed eighty percent of the worker's salary.”
Establishes the mandatory nature of the statutory offset provision, supporting the self-executing interpretation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMuriel Wilcox was awarded temporary total and permanent total disability benefits, costs, interest, and medical expenses in a workers' compensation pr…
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 Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Department of Public Health v. Wilcox, 504 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987), based on certified conflict with Colonel’s Table v. Malena, 412 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We have jurisdiction. Art. Y, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We quash the decision below and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In a worker’s compensation proceeding, the respondent, Muriel Wilcox, was awarded temporary total and permanent total disability benefits, costs, interests, and medical expenses. Her employer, the State of Florida, Department of Public Health, Division of Risk Management, subsequently determined that Wilcox was also receiving federal social security benefits, and reduced the amount of her workers’ compensation award pursuant to the offset provision in section 440.15(9), Florida Statutes (1985).
Wilcox contends that the setoff provision in section 440.15(9) cannot be taken by her employer on its own accord, but rather must be authorized by the deputy commissioner. The Third District Court of Appeal agreed with Wilcox and held that her employer could not take the setoff unilaterally. The court held that the compensation award could only be reduced by the deputy commissioner in a modification proceeding. Wilcox, 504 So. 2d at 444 (Fla.1987).
The state, as the employer, argues that the offset provision is self-executing and can be taken unilaterally. Thus, the issue presented is whether Wilcox’s employer (the state) may unilaterally take the setoff authorized by section 440.15(9). We hold that it may.
Section 440.15(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), requires that weekly workers’ compensation benefits be reduced by the amount that they and social security benefits, in the aggregate, exceed eighty percent of the injured worker’s average weekly wage.1 The language is unequivocal. The offset is mandatory if the combined benefits exceed eighty percent of the worker’s salary. Correspondingly, at the federal level, 42 United States Code section 424a (1935), requires that the Social Security Administration take the setoff if it is not taken under a state workers’ compensation program.
We note at the outset that section 424a was enacted to prevent injured workers from receiving “windfall” benefits from the combination of social security disability benefits and workers’ compensation benefits.2 Congress feared that the duplication of benefits would reduce a worker’s incentive to return to work impeding rehabilitative efforts.3 Several states, including Florida, enacted similar statutes requiring state employers to take the setoffs first, thereby saving money. Although section 440.15(9) does not expressly address whether an employer may take the setoff unilaterally, section 424a clearly allows the Social Security Administration to do so.4
The rationale underlying the federal statutory scheme is sound. The Social Security Administration has knowledge of the amount of social security benefits an employee receives. It must then obtain information regarding the amount of workers’ compensation benefits from the state that is administering the plan.5 When the Social Security Administration has this information, the amount of the setoff can be quickly and easily determined by using a simple mathematical calculation. The federal statute recognizes this and thus allows the setoff to be taken administratively. We find the federal scheme persuasive.6
Similarly, section 440.15(9)(c) imposes no obligation on the employee to inform his employer that he has begun receiving social security disability benefits, nor does it require the employee to calculate the requisite eighty percent limit and remit the excess. Rather, the employer must take the initiative in determining the applicability of the reduction. No deduction can be taken until the employer receives the worker’s social security disability information from the Social Security Administration. Then, the setoff only can be taken prospectively. Department of Transportation v. Lindsey, 383 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
Thus, section 440.15(9) requires a Florida employer to obtain the same reliable information that the federal statute demands. Since both the Florida employer and the Social Security Administration rely upon the same information in determining the applicability of the setoff, we see no reason why the state setoff should not also be self-executing. Therefore, we hold that the setoff provision in section 440.15(9) may be taken administratively by an employer/carrier. We reject the respondent’s contention that the setoff can be made only by the deputy commissioner in a modification proceeding. This proceeding would insure against an employer miscalculating the amount of the setoff. We fail to see how this possible benefit to the employee outweighs the additional expense and delay it imposes on the employer. The employer has little incentive to miscalculate the amount of the setoff because review by the deputy commissioner is always available to the employee. The First District Court of Appeal has consistently held that the offset provision in section 440.15(9) is self-executing. See Colonel’s Table v. Malena, 412 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Adkins, 377 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Borden, Inc. v. Butler, 377 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Sherrod Dry Wall v. Reeves, 378 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).7
Accordingly, we hold that the setoff provision in section 440.15(9) is self-executing in nature and therefore, can be taken unilaterally by the employer. We quash the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, barkett, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. . Section 440.15(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), states:
Weekly compensation benefits payable under this chapter for disability resulting from injuries to an employee who becomes eligible for benefits under 42 U.S.C. s. 423 shall be reduced to an amount whereby the sum of such compensation benefits payable under this chapter and such total benefits otherwise payable for such period to the employee and his dependents, had such employee not been enti-tied to benefits under this chapter, under 42 U.S.C. ss. 423 and 402, does not exceed 80 percent of the employee's average weekly wage. However, this provision shall not operate to reduce an injured worker’s benefits under this chapter to a greater extent than such benefits would have otherwise been reduced under 42 U.S.C. s. 424(a) [sic]. This reduction of compensation benefits is not applicable to any compensation benefits payable for any week subsequent to the week in which the injured worker reaches the age of 62 years.
. Krista], Social security disability benefits: Benefit or burden to the severely injured workers’ compensation claimant?, 61 Fla.B.J. 65 (July/Aug.1987).
. Id.
. 42 U.S.C. § 424a(h)(2) states:
The Secretary [of the Department of Health and Human Services] is authorized to enter into agreements with States, political subdivisions, and other organizations that administer a law or plan subject to the provisions of this section, in order to obtain such information as he may require to carry out the provisions of this section.
Thus, the Social Security Administration is authorized to obtain the necessary information in order to take the setoff administratively.
. Id
. Our statutes recognize the persuasiveness of federal laws in the workers’ compensation area. Section 440.44(1), Florida Statutes (1985), states:
(1) INTERPRETATION OF LAW. — As a guide to the interpretation of this chapter, the Legislature takes due notice of federal social and labor acts and hereby creates an agency to administer such acts passed for the benefit of employees and employers in Florida industry, and desires to meet the requirements of such federal acts wherever not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of Florida.
. Pursuant to statute, in 1979, the First District Court of Appeal became the principal forum for reviewing deputy commissioner orders, replacing the Industrial Relations Commission. Ch. 79-312, § 1, Laws of Fla.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Diamond R. Fertilizer & Seibels Bruce Grp. v. Davis, 567 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…oviding for offset against an employer’s workers’ compensation obligations to the extent that the injured employee was receiving federal social security benefits, is self-executing. Department of Public Health, Division of Risk Management v. Wilcox, 543 So. 2d 1253 (Fla.1989). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions for the judge of compensation claims to receive expert testimony explaining the MRI test results as bearing on the issue of causation and compensability. Thereafter, in the event the…
-
Monroe v. Publix # 148 & ITT Hartford Ins. Co., 790 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…tice of action/change and subtracting the offset from compensation payments suffices to perfect an employer’s right to a social security disability offset. No order of a judge of compensation claims is required. See Dep’t of Public Health v. Wilcox, 543 So. 2d 1253, 1255-56 (Fla.1989); Colonel’s Table, 412 So. 2d at 65; Sherrod Dry Wall, 378 So. 2d at 301; Borden, Inc., 377 So. 2d at 795; Fla. Power & Light, 377 So. 2d at 57. The propriety of the offset on and after March 15, 1999, is not in question. Also on…
-
Santos v. K-Mart & KM Admin. Servs., 629 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…urrently paying $60.28 per week, since the claim requested only $57.25 per week, a lesser amount, the claim was therefore moot. We disagree. Although employers may take social security offsets administratively, Department of Public Health v. Wilcox, 543 So. 2d 1253 (Fla.1989); Quail Ridge v. Johnson, 584 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), review by the JCC is always available to the employee. Wilcox. It is this review which Santos asserts he sought below. The employer carries the burden, if raised by a claimant…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dep't of Transp. v. Lindsey, 383 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Colonel's Table & Zurich-American Ins. Co. v. Malena, 412 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Adkins, 377 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Borden, Inc. v. Butler, 377 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Sherrod DRY Wall & Cosmopolitan Mut. Ins. Co. v. Reeves, 378 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Est. of Henry Lee Mills v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n & Stevenson Ins. Assocs., Inc., 378 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- State v. Wilcox, 504 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)