ELITE TILE & MARBLE AND ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
CHARLES BURNETT, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Elite Tile & Marble and its insurance carrier appealed a workers' compensation judge's calculation of a social security offset and denial of reimbursement for overpaid benefits. The First District Court of Appeal held that the judge erred by failing to use the maximum federal social security offset as required by Hunt v. Stratton, and also erred in denying reimbursement for overpayment.
The court held that the judge erred by failing to apply the Hunt formula using the maximum federal social security offset of $216.30 weekly, and that the offset must be recalculated accordingly. The court also held that the employer and carrier are entitled to reimbursement for overpayment of workers' compensation benefits from May 21, 1995.
[1] A social security offset calculation must compare the preliminary offset amount with the maximum federal social security offset allowed under 42 U.S.C. …
[2] When calculating a social security offset, the court must use the maximum federal social security offset, not the amount actually taken by the Social Security Administrat…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“to determine whether the preliminary offset amount exceeds the "offset which the federal government would otherwise have taken," in applying the formula, the court must compare the amount of the preliminary offset from Step One of the formula with the "total amount of social security benefits due a claimant and his family, which is the maximum federal social security offset allowed under 42 U.S.C. § 424a(a)"”
Establishes the proper Hunt formula for calculating social security offsets by comparing preliminary offset to maximum federal offset
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBurnett received workers' compensation benefits and also collected social security benefits. The judge of compensation claims calculated the social se…
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 Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We agree that the judge of compensation claims should have allowed the employer and carrier to utilize the maximum family benefit to calculate the applicable social security offset. We set out the formula for calculating a social security offset in Hunt v. Stratton, 677 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We explained in Hunt that, to determine whether the preliminary offset amount exceeds the “offset which the federal government would otherwise have taken,” in applying the formula, the court must compare the amount of the preliminary offset from Step One of the formula with the “total amount of social security benefits due a claimant and his family, which is the maximum federal social security offset allowed under 42 U.S.C. § 424a(a).... ” Hunt, 677 So. 2d at 67.
The judge of compensation claims did not use the maximum federal social security offset, as mandated by Hunt, in this step of the formula.1 Instead, the judge used the amount of offset that the Social Security Administration had actually taken previously against Burnett’s benefits between May of 1992 and June of 1993. This was error. The offset in this case must be recalculated according to the Hunt formula by using the amount of weekly social security benefits ($216.30) as the maximum social security offset.
Likewise, we agree that the judge erred in denying the claim for reimbursement. In this case, the employer and carrier are entitled to reimbursement for overpayment of workers’ compensation benefits from May 21, 1995, the date the claimant was accepted as permanently and totally disabled. We find no error as to the issues raised in the cross-appeal.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR. BENTON, J., CONCURS WITH WRITTEN OPINION.
. The amount of this offset was indicated on the SSA form entered into evidence. When the amount indicated on the form is divided by 4.3 to convert the monthly figure into a weekly figure, the total is $216.30.
BENTON, J.,
concurring.
I concur on the authority of Irwin Yacht & Marine Corp. v. Piernik, 675 So. 2d 975, 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (reversing where “JCC ... limited ... offset ... to that actually taken by social security [before the claimant was accepted as permanently totally disabled] without making a determination as to the actual limitation of the offset under section 440.15(9)(a)”), and Brown v. L.P. Sanitation, 689 So. 2d 332, 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (construing section 440.15(3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994), to allow “recovery of overpayments occurring on or after January 1, 1994” without regard to date of accident).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Althan W. Hunt v. D.M. Stratton, Jr., 677 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Brown v. L.P. Sanitation & CNA Ins. Co., 689 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Irwin Yacht & Marine Corp. v. Moshe Piernik, 675 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)