VERLIN E. HYATT, APPELLANT,
v.
LARSON DAIRY, INC. AND FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, 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.
Hyatt appeals a workers' compensation order affirming the employer/carrier's calculation of a social security offset from his permanent total disability benefits. The court upholds the offset methodology, holding that supplemental benefits must be included within the benefits subject to the 80% social security offset cap.
The court affirmed that supplemental benefits must be included in calculating the social security offset under the 80% cap, and that Hyatt is entitled to receive supplemental benefits in addition to his weekly compensation rate, with the full total paid when it does not exceed the Average Weekly Wage.
[1] Supplemental benefits are included within those benefits subject to the 80 percent cap of the social security offset in workers' compensation cases.
[2] A workers' compensation claimant may receive supplemental benefits in addition to their weekly compensation rate, provided the total does not exceed the average weekly wa…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 legislature's intent to include supplemental benefits within those benefits subject to the 80 percent cap of the social security offset is clear.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that supplemental benefits must be included in the social security offset calculation.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHyatt suffered a compensable work injury in 1985 and began receiving social security benefits in November 1986. He reached maximum medical improvement…
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 Supplemental Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
This appeal is from a workers’ compensation order finding that the employer/carrier (e/c) are taking the correct amount of social security offset. We affirm.
Hyatt suffered a compensable injury in 1985. He began receiving social security benefits in November 1986. Hyatt reached maximum medical improvement on September 27, 1987; and he was voluntarily accepted for permanent total disability benefits on October 5, 1988, retroactive to September 1, 1988. The following numbers are not disputed:
In November 1989 the carrier took a social security offset of $34.57, reducing Hyatt’s weekly compensation rate to $185.79. The calculation was as follows:
Hyatt filed an amended claim for benefits on January 26, 1990. Hyatt claimed the correct social security offset was $1.50, which would give Hyatt a compensation rate of $218.86. He argued the offset should be calculated without factoring the $33.06 supplemental benefit. Hyatt also claimed he is due the supplemental benefit in addition to the compensation rate, raising his weekly benefit to $251.92. He argued there should be two calculations — one for social security benefits and another for supplemental benefits:
The judge of compensation claims agreed with the e/c’s method of calculating the social security offset; and we agree with the judge of compensation claims. “The legislature’s intent to include supplemental benefits within those benefits subject to the 80 percent cap of the social security offset is clear.” Division of Workers’ Compensation v. Hooks, 515 So. 2d 294, 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Hyatt argues that he should receive supplemental benefits in addition to his weekly compensation rate. We construe the order on appeal as so finding. For example, in 1988 Hyatt is entitled to a weekly compensation rate of $185.79 plus $33.06 in supplemental benefits. When Hyatt’s $45.59 social security benefit is added, his weekly benefits total $264.44; and because that total does not exceed the AWW, Hyatt will receive the full amount. See section 440.15(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1988).
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Althan W. Hunt v. D.M. Stratton, Jr., 677 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…l calculation of the workers’ compensation offset, the law does not contemplate a recalculation of the offset based upon any increases thereafter. See Hunter v. South Florida Sod, 666 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), and Hyatt v. Larson Dairy, Inc., 589 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and cases cited therein. The JCC’s order is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for correction of the order consistent with this opinion. KAHN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur. . To the right of the formula, we have included the a…
-
Fla. Power Corp. & Rskco v. van Loan, 764 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…employer and servicing agent began taking the offset. See HRS District II v. Pickard, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1749, — So. 2d —, 1999 WL 503456 (Fla. 1st DCA July 19, 1999); Hunt v. Stratton, 677 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Hyatt v. Larson Dairy, Inc., 589 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). To permit the procedure urged by the employer and servicing agent would provide an incentive to delay calculating the offset. In summary, we affirm that portion of the order which holds that the social security offset should be…
-
Orange Cnty. Fire Rescue & Johns E. Co., Inc. v. Antonelli, 794 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…emplate a recalcula [*761] tion of the offset based upon any increases thereafter.” Hunt, in turn, relied on two previous social security offset cases—Hunter v. South Florida Sod, 666 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), and Hyatt v. Larson Dairy, Inc., 589 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). However, reliance on social security offset cases is misplaced because a social security offset is distinct from a Grice offset, and is governed by a different statute. See Jackson v. Hochadel Roofing Co., 794 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clifton Constr. & Zurich Ins. Co. v. Floyd, 515 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- State v. Hooks, 515 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)