CITY OF MIAMI, APPELLANT,
v.
ORLANDO PAREDES, 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 court affirmed the workers' compensation judge's decision on retroactivity and penalties while certifying to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether Section 440.20(7) applies and whether the City of Miami can be excused from penalties for pension offset withholdings made in good faith reliance on a city ordinance, and reversed the lien language to characterize it as an offset instead.
The court affirmed the compensation judge's decision on retroactivity and penalties issues while reversing the characterization of a lien as an offset and certifying a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court regarding Section 440.20(7) applicability and penalty excusal.
[1] A lien for pension offset amounts in workers' compensation cases should be characterized as an offset in excess of average monthly wage rather than as a lien.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Miami withheld pension offset monies from an employee's workers' compensation benefits based on a city ordinance that had been approved by…
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 Good Faith Reliance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case, all of the issues raised on appeal have been addressed recently in City of Miami v. Hickey, 614 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), which decision is controlling here. Accordingly, as in Hickey, on the issues of re-troactivity and penalties, we affirm the decision of the judge of compensation claims and certify to the supreme court the following question, which we believe to be of great public importance:
IS SECTION 440.20(7) APPLICABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, AND IP SO, CAN THE CITY OF MIAMI BE LEGALLY EXCUSED FROM PAYING A PENALTY PURSUANT TO THAT SECTION ON THE AMOUNT OF PENSION OFFSET MONIES WITHHELD IN THE PAST BECAUSE THE CITY DID SO IN GOOD FAITH RELIANCE ON THE VALIDITY OF THE CITY ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE PENSION OFFSET IN VIEW OF THE APPELLATE DECISIONS APPROVING ITS VALIDITY?
Also as in Hickey, on the lien issue, we delete from the order of the judge of compensation claims the language “subject to a lien in favor of FIPO of $513.57 per month”; and in its place substitute the language “subject to an offset in excess of the average monthly wage, which offset in this case is $513.57."
AFFIRMED IN PART; and REVERSED IN PART.
ERVIN, BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami v. Paredes, 638 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…PER CURIAM. Our original decision in this case, City of Miami v. Paredes, 614 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), was reviewed by the supreme court as a companion case to City of Miami v. Bell, 634 So. 2d 163 (1994). Pursuant to the supreme court’s opinion in Bell, we vacate those portions of our original decision which affirmed the award b…
Authorities Cited
- Habie v. Habie, 614 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)