RORY A. BUSSERT, APPELLANT,
v.
DEAN W. HOLLEY, 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.
In a workers' compensation case, the court remanded for correction of an equitable distribution order to limit the lienor's recovery to the claimant's net tort recovery as required by statute.
A workers' compensation lienor's recovery in equitable distribution must be limited to the claimant's net tort recovery, not the gross settlement amount.
[1] A workers' compensation lienor's recovery in equitable distribution proceedings is limited to the claimant's net tort recovery, not the gross settlement amount, pursuant…
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 appellant, a school bus driver, was injured in a rear-end automobile accident during employment and settled a negligence action against the third …
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 Worker'S Compensation Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case, the appellant appeals from an Order of Equitable Distribution. The appellant settled a negligence action against the third party defendant which arose from injuries the appellant suffered in a rear-end automobile accident that occurred while the appellant was driving a school bus in the course of her employment. The appellant then moved for equita ble distribution pursuant to section 440.39, Florida Statutes (1993). The appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to limit the lienor’s recovery to the amount of the appellant’s net tort recovery pursuant to section 440.39, Florida Statutes (1993), a point which the lienors, appellant’s employer and the employer’s servicing agent, concede. We agree. See Aetna Insurance Company v. Norman, 468 So. 2d 226, 228 (Fla.1985); American States Insurance Company v. Johnson, 426 So. 2d 1222, 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
We therefore remand to the trial court with directions to amend the Order of Equitable Distribution to add the following language as requested by lienor:
Once Kings Academy, Inc./FEISCO recover the sum of $11,413.83 pursuant to the Order of Equitable Distribution, Kings Academy, Inc./FEISCO shall recommence payment of full workers’ compensation benefits to which the Claimant is otherwise entitled under the law.
REMANDED for treatment consistent with this opinion.
WARNER, POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Hollywood v. Lombardi, 770 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 2000)…s capped at the claimant’s net recovery and that the court “should have used the net tort recovery by the claimant as the amount which must be satisfied before the carrier need recommence full payment of future benefits.” Id.; see Bussert v. Holley, 653 So. 2d 1146, 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Although this Court decided Norman under a prior version of section 440.39, neither the earlier statute nor the present statute specifically addresses the issue of the cap on the lien- or’s recovery. However, “the legislat…
-
State v. Reed, 712 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…ble cause to believe a crime had been committed6 and that Reed had committed it.7 REVERSED. GRIFFIN, C.J., and THOMPSON, J.,.. concur. . State v. T.T., 594 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). . § 893.13(l)(a)l, Fla. Stat. (1997). . Harvey v. State, 653 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); State v. T.T., 594 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); State v. Jarrett, 530 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). . State v. T.T.; State v. Jarrett. . Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984); Chambers v. S…
-
State v. Jennings, 968 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). Regardless of the subjective intentions of the officers, the odor of burning marijuana alone provided probable cause to search appellee. Id. at 115 (citing Harvey v. State, 653 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)). The officers in this case had probable cause to search the occupants of the vehicle once they smelled the marijuana. That they may have articulated a subjective intent to sea…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- AETNA Ins. Co. v. Norman, 468 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1985)
- Am. States Ins. Co. v. Clark Johnson, 426 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)