D.C. GENERAL CONTRACTORS AND CLAIMS CENTER, APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANK BLOUNT, 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 personal representative of a deceased claimant may file a claim for wage loss benefits that accrued prior to the claimant's death, and an offset for social security disability benefits is not applicable to benefits accrued before a statutory amendment.
A worker's compensation order awarded wage loss benefits to a claimant. The employer/carrier appealed, arguing the claimant's personal representative …
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 Exclusive Liability Of Employer cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a timely appeal of a worker’s compensation order awarding wage loss benefits. We affirm.
The judge of compensation claims correctly determined that the claimant’s personal representative may file a claim for benefits which accrued prior to the claimant’s death. We reject the employer/carrier’s argument that section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes, limits the class of persons who may file a claim. Section 440.11 provides that the liability of an employer under chapter 440 is exclusive and that an employer is immune from all other liability. This statutory provision does not specify who can file a claim.
We also reject the employer/carrier’s argument that they are entitled to an offset on the wage loss benefits based on social security disability benefits received by the claimant. The wage loss benefits awarded accrued prior to the 1988 amendment to section 440.15(3)(b)1, Florida Statutes. The judge was therefore correct in denying the requested offset. Good Housekeeping Gas Co. v. Kitler, 492 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
The remaining issues raised on appeal are without merit. Accordingly, the order below is affirmed.
ZEHMER, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boggan v. State, 589 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…abitual offender as a defendant who has “previously been convicted of any combination of two or more felonies in this state or other qualified offenses[.]” 578 So. 2d at 888. In conformity with our decisions in Barnes, Fuller, and Malone v. State, 588 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), we certify the following question to the supreme court as a question of great public importance: WHETHER SECTION 775.084(l)(a)l, FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), WHICH DEFINES HABITUAL FELONY OFFENDERS AS THOSE WHO HAVE “PREVIOUSLY BE…
-
State v. Malone, 595 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1992)…OVERTON, Judge. We quash the decision of the district court in Malone v. State, 588 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), on the authority of State v. Barnes, 595 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1992),1 and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with our decision in Barnes. It is so ordered. SHAW, C.J., and McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HA…
Authorities Cited
- Good Housekeeping GAS Co. & Crawford & Co. v. Kitler, 492 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)