OSCAR W. ETHERIDGE, SR., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
MCKENZIE TANK LINES, INC., ET ANO., APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1990-03-14
No. 88-2990
NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
557 So. 2d 962 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1990) Negative Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
ERVIN, Judge.

ERVIN, Judge.

Of the three issues raised by appellants, only their challenge to the judge of compensation claim’s denial of a penalty, sought pursuant to the provisions of Section 440.20(8), Florida Statutes (1985), is meritorious. Despite the issuance of this court’s mandate on July 29, 1988, following an earlier appeal from an order awarding death benefits, the employer/carrier failed to pay the sums owed until September 28, 1988, more than 30 days after our opinion had become final, contrary to section 440.-20(8). Accordingly, appellants are entitled to be awarded a 20 percent penalty on the amount paid ($16,532.42) on September 28, 1988. See Binimelis v. M.E.F. Int’l Corp., 424 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Jones v. Cling Elec., Inc., 397 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Appellants are similarly entitled to interest on the unpaid penalty from August 29, 1988, when the compensation was due, until the penalty is paid. § 440.20(9), Fla.Stat. (1985).

The remaining points raised by appellants are affirmed without discussion.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.

NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Steinbrecher v. Better Constr. Co., 587 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
    …n Burnup. The court stated, “[w]e are aware of no statutory authority or judicial decision which would excuse compliance with the penalty provision as applied to the facts at bar.” 492 So. 2d at 1179. See also Etheridge v. McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc., 557 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Parker Lumber Co. v. Hart, 497 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Telford v. Frank J. Rooney, Inc., 436 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In concluding that the penalty provision of section 440.20(8) is mandatory, we are not unmindf…
  • Jeffry Sigg v. Sears, 594 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
    …uous and that assessment of the penalty is mandatory when compensation has not been paid within 30 days after it became due. See, for example, Stein-brecher v. Better Constr. Co., 587 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Etheridge v. McKenzie Tank Lines, 557 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); City of Miami v. Watkins, 579 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Several cases from this court, however, have stated that the JCC has discretion as to whether to assess the statutory penalty. Eller-bee v. Concorde Roofing Co., 461…
  • City OF N. Miami v. Marcy, 630 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
    …bsection (8). Cf. Steinbrecher v. Better Constr. Co., 587 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (reversing 'portion of order denying claim for 20% penalties on lump-sum settlement amount paid beyond 30-day deadline); Etheridge v. McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc., 557 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (claimant was entitled to an award of a 20% penalty under § 440.28(8), where the e/c failed to pay the sums due until more than 30 days after issuance of the mandate). The issue of statutory interest is governed by § 440.20(9),…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw