DANNY PATTERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
UNION CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 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.
Supplemental benefits under section 440.15(3)(b)l. require satisfaction of all enumerated provisions, not just one.
[1] Supplemental benefits under section 440.15(3)(b)1., Florida Statutes (1993), require an employee to have an impairment rating of 20 percent or more, have not returned to…
[2] The use of the word "and" in a statute indicates the legislature's intent to make all parts of the sentence applicable in the conjunctive, not disjunctive.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Patterson was injured at work and had a permanent partial impairment rating of twelve percent. He sought supplemental benefits under a statute…
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 Plain Meaning Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
Officer Patterson was injured at work in September 1994 in a simulated exercise to demonstrate restraint of prisoners. There was no dispute over the compensability of his injuries. He has a twelve percent permanent partial impairment. The sole issue in this appeal is the proper interpretation of section 440.15(3)(b)l., Florida Statutes (1993), which states that supplemental benefits must be paid if:
a. The employee has an impairment rating from the compensable injury of 20 percent or more as determined pursuant to this chapter;
b. The employee has not returned to work or has returned to work earning less than 80 percent of the employee’s average weekly wage as a direct result of the employee’s impairment; and e. The employee has in good faith at-, tempted to obtain employment commensurate with the employee’s ability to work.
Officer Patterson argues that he is entitled to supplemental benefits under this section despite his impairment rating of less than twenty percent because the use of semi-colons indicates that the requirements of the statute are being stated in the disjunctive or as alternatives to one another. It was stipulated below that the claimant satisfied requirements (b) and (c).
We reject claimant’s interpretation on the grounds that it is at variance with the plain language of the statute. The use of the word “and” clearly indicates that all of the enumerated provisions must be satisfied to prove entitlement to supplemental benefits. The Florida Legislature’s Guideline for Bill Drafting at 91 confirms that the use of the word “and” indicates the Legislature’s intent to make all parts of the sentence applicable in the conjunctive. See also Florida BirthRelated Neurological Injury Compensation Assn. v. Florida Div. of Administrative Hearings, 686 So. 2d 1349, 1355 (Fla.1997); Lansford v. Broward County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 485 So. 2d 845, 846-47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Accordingly, the decision of the Judge of Compensation Claims denying supplemental benefits is AFFIRMED.
KAHN, J., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McGLADE v. State, 982 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…tandard jury instruction, the trial court clearly attempted to craft a proper instruction by employing the statutory language. But the statute is written in the conjunctive; the instruction was in the disjunctive. See Patterson v. Union Corr. Inst., 697 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (stating that the use of the word “and” clearly indicates that all of the enumerated provisions must be satisfied). The instruction as given may have misled the jurors to believe that it was unnecessary for them to decide whether…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n v. Florida Division OF Administrative Hearings, 686 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1997)
- Lansford v. Broward Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 485 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)