CRUSE CONSTRUCTION AND FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, INC. (FIGA), APPELLANTS/CROSSAPPELLEES,
v.
FRANK ST. REMY, APPELLEE/CROSSAPPELLANT
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.
This workers' compensation case addresses whether a permanently totally disabled (PTD) claimant is entitled to cost-of-living increases (PTD Supplement) when their benefits are reduced by a social security offset. The court affirmed that PTD claimants remain eligible for statutory cost-of-living supplements despite the offset, and that the offset need not be recalculated annually.
PTD claimants remain entitled to statutorily provided cost-of-living increases (PTD Supplement) even when their benefits are reduced by social security offset. The social security offset need only be calculated once initially; it does not require annual recalculation, but the total benefits after offset will increase annually for cost-of-living adjustments. The employer and carrier were not required to pay bills for unauthorized chiropractic services when there was no unreasonable delay in providing authorized care.
[1] A permanently totally disabled claimant is entitled to receive the statutorily provided cost of living increase, even when benefits are reduced by a social security offse…
[2] The initial calculation of a social security offset in workers' compensation cases does not require annual recalculation based on subsequent cost of living increases.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Once the initial calculation of the social security offset has been performed, the offset need not be recalculated annually. However, the total amount of benefits receivable after the offset will change annually to account for the cost of living increase provided as PTD supplemental benefits.”
Establishes the court's holding that PTD claimants receive annual cost-of-living increases despite social security offset, with no need for annual offset recalculation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMr. St. Remy, a carpenter, suffered a compensable back injury on February 14, 1985, when he fell off a four-story roof. He is permanently totally disa…
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 Average Weekly Wage (Aww) Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mr. Frank St. Remy, a carpenter, injured his back in a compensable accident on February 14, 1985, when he fell off the roof of a four story building. He is permanently totally disabled. The employer and carrier (e/c) have appealed a ruling that they incorrectly calculated Mr. St. Remy’s social security offset, and Mr. St. Remy has cross-appealed the JCC’s decision to deny payment of the bills of an unauthorized chiropractor. We affirm.
The e/c argue that, under this court’s opinion in Hunt v. Stratton, 677 So. 2d 64, 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), a permanently totally disabled (PTD) claimant is not entitled to receive the statutorily provided cost of living increase (the “PTD Supplement”), because that would mean recalculating the benefits annually. We write to clarify the penultimate paragraph of Hunt v. Stratton, in which this court stated:
We note that both the federal and state disability benefit schemes include incremental increases in benefits to account for future increases in the cost of living (federal cost-of-living adjustments and state supplemental benefits). While the existing workers’ compensation supplemental benefit is considered in the initial calculation of the workers’ compensation offset, the law does not contemplate a recalculation of the offset based upon any increases thereafter. The Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) in this case properly applied the formulae set forth in Hunt v. Stratton, 677 So. 2d 64, 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Contrary to the argument of the e/c, that case clearly holds that total disability benefits may exceed 80% of average weekly wage (AWW) under the circumstances presented here.1 Id. at 66. Once the initial calculation of the social security offset has been performed, the offset need not be recalculated annually. However, the total amount of benefits receivable after the offset will change annually to account for the cost of living increase provided as PTD supplemental benefits. There is no reasonable basis for concluding that permanently totally disabled claimants whose benefits are reduced by social security offset thereby become ineligible for the statutorily provided PTD supplemental benefit.
With regard to the cross-appeal, we find there was competent substantial evidence to support the decision of the JCC that there was not an unreasonable delay in the claimant being provided with authorized chiropractic care, and no justification for requiring the e/c to pay the bills of the unauthorized chiropractor who treated the claimant in the short interim between the request for such care and authorization of it.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
ERVIN, KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur. . Specifically, when the preliminary offset amount under the formulae in Hunt v. Stratton exceeds the total amount of the federal social security offset, the final offset is limited to the federal payment and the benefits due may exceed 80% of AWW.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alderman v. Fla. Plastering & Associated Indus. Ins. Co., 748 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…to recalculate a workers’ compensation offset, once the initial calculation has been made, based upon any cost-of-living increases in collateral benefits. We reaffirmed our holding in Hunt and explained it further in Cruse Construction v. St. Remy, 704 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997): Once the initial calculation of the social security offset has been performed, the offset need not be recalculated annually. However the total amount of benefits receivable after the offset will change annually to account for t…
-
Acker v. City OF Clearwater, 755 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…l benefit is considered in the initial calculation of the workers’ compensation offset, the law does not contemplate a recalculation of the offset based upon any increases thereafter. We followed the same analysis in Cruse Construction v. St. Remy, 704 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(holding that when calculating the federal social security offset, [*653] the offset need not be recalculated every year to account for the increase in supplemental benefits). The supreme court’s decision in Escambia Co. Sheriff’…
-
Americana Dutch Hotel & Cigna Prop. & Cas. Co. v. McWILLIAMS, 733 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…offset, once the initial calculation has been made, based upon any [*538] cost-of-living increases in collateral benefits.” Id. at D2579, — So. 2d at-; see Acker, 23 Fla. L. Weekly at D1971, — So. 2d at -, 1998 WL 476168; Cruse Constr. v. St. Remy, 704 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Hunt v. Stratton, 677 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The court also explained that “Hunt’s, prohibition against recalculation to account for cost-of-living increase, as reaffirmed in Cruse, is still good law.” Alderman, 23 Fla.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Althan W. Hunt v. D.M. Stratton, Jr., 677 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)