JOHN SCOTT, APPELLANT,
v.
MOHAWK CANOES AND RISCORP RISK MANAGEMENT, 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.
Scott appeals a Judge of Compensation Claims' order terminating his permanent total disability supplemental benefits at age 65 when his Social Security disability benefits converted to retirement benefits. The court reversed, holding that the statute requires eligibility for both retirement AND disability benefits to justify termination, and Scott was no longer eligible for disability benefits at 65.
The employer/carrier incorrectly ceased payment of supplemental benefits at age 65. The unambiguous language of Florida Statute section 440.15(l)(e)1 requires that prior to cessation of supplemental benefits, a claimant must be eligible for both retirement and disability benefits under the Social Security Act. Once claimant reached age 65 and was no longer entitled to Social Security disability benefits, he no longer met this requirement.
[1] Permanent total disability supplemental benefits may not cease solely because a claimant reaches the age of 65 if the claimant is no longer eligible for social security d…
[2] Entitlement to supplemental benefits under section 440.15(l)(e)1, Florida Statutes, requires that a claimant be eligible for both retirement and disability benefits under…
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 intelligence“the unambiguous language of section 440.15(l)(e)l, Florida Statutes, requires that prior to cessation of entitlement to supplemental benefits, a claimant must be eligible for both retirement and disability benefits under the Social Security Act”
Establishes the controlling statutory interpretation that dual eligibility is required to terminate supplemental benefits
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott was injured at age 61 and began receiving Social Security disability benefits at age 62. His employer/carrier began paying permanent total disab…
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.
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (hereinafter JCC) finding that Employer/Carrier was entitled to cease payment of permanent total disability supplemental benefits after a claimant turned 65 years old, which is the age when a claimant is no longer entitled to receive social security disability benefits.
In the instant case, Claimant was injured when he was 61 years old, and he began receiving social security disability benefits when he was 62 years old. E/C began payment of permanent total disability and supplemental benefits when Claimant was 64 years old. At age 65, the Social Security Administration converted Claimant’s disability benefits to retirement benefits. At this same time, E/C terminated payment of supplemental benefits, citing section 440.15(l)(e)l, Florida Statutes (1991), as authority. The JCC found that E/C had correctly ceased payment of supplemental benefits. We disagree, and reverse the JCC’s order. As we explained in Burger King Corp. v. Moreno, 689 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), the unambiguous language of section 440.15(l)(e)l, Florida Statutes, requires that prior to cessation of entitlement to supplemental benefits, a claimant must be eligible for both retirement and disability benefits under the Social Security Act. In the instant case, once Claimant reached age 65, he was no longer entitled to receive social security disability benefits. Accordingly, E/C incorrectly ceased payment of supplemental benefits when Claimant reached the age of 65.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dixon v. Pasadena Yacht & Country Club & Alexsis, Inc., 731 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
-
Gracette Wilkins v. Broward Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc., 754 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…Owens, 731 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (claimant injured at age 62 and found PTD at age 63); Dixon v. Pasadena Yacht & Country Club, 731 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (claimant injured at age 61 and found PTD at age 63); Scott v. Mohawk Canoes, 730 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (claimant injured at age 61 and found PTD at age 64); Moreno, 689 So. 2d at 289 (claimant injured and found PTD at age 69). We hold that in cases such as this, where a claimant is injured and reaches PTD prior to age 62, the cla…
-
Hillsborough Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Broadspire v. Ward, 913 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…other cause.” Id. Thus, there was no evidence in the record from which we could conclude that, but for the claimant’s age, claimant would be “eligible” for social security disability benefits. Id. at 289-90. Subsequently, in Scott v. Mohawk Canoes, 730 So. 2d 731, 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), we reversed the JCC’s order finding that the E/C was entitled to cease payment of PTD supplemental benefits after the claimant turned 65. The claimant was injured when he was 61 and began-receiving social security disabilit…
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
- Burger King Corporation/Cigna Ins. Co. v. Moreno, 689 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)