HARDRIVES OF DELRAY, INC. AND FEISCO CLAIMS, APPELLANTS,
v.
OTHA O'NEAL, 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 employer and carrier mistakenly calculated social security benefit offsets using an incorrect monthly benefit amount ($1,343.10 instead of $1,119.20). The court reversed the lower court's order requiring full repayment of all offsets plus penalties and interest, holding instead that the employer and carrier need only repay the excess amount they were not entitled to take.
The employer and carrier must repay only the portion of the offsets that exceeded the amount they were entitled to take, together with appropriate penalties and interest, not the entire amount of all offsets taken. The cases cited by the lower court (Thomas v. Sunland Training Center, Colonel's Table v. Malena, and Pan American Bank v. Glinski) are distinguishable because those cases involved situations where the right to take any offset was challenged, whereas here the only dispute concerns the amount of an otherwise proper offset.
[1] An employer and carrier are only responsible for repaying the portion of social security benefit offsets that exceeded the amount they were entitled to take, plus penalti…
[2] A claimant is not entitled to a windfall resulting from an employer's innocent mistake in calculating a social security benefit offset.
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“when a social security offset has been challenged by a claimant, one may not be taken until and unless the employer and carrier prove that it is warranted. Here, in contrast, there has never been any claim that the employer and carrier are not entitled to an offset. The only dispute is with regard to the amount of that offset.”
Establishes the key distinction between the precedent cases and the current case, showing why those cases do not apply
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe employer and carrier computed social security offsets applicable to the claimant's permanent total disability benefits using a monthly social secu…
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 Windfall cases and more on FLexlaw
WEBSTER, J.
In this workers’ compensation case, the employer and carrier seek review of an order directing them to refund to the claimant all social security benefit offsets taken during a period of nearly four years, plus penalties and interest, because the employer and carrier calculated the offsets based on a monthly social security disability benefit of $1,343.10, instead of $1,119.20. The employer and carrier argue that they should be responsible to repay only the portion of the offsets that exceeded that which they were entitled to take, together with appropriate penalties and interest. We agree and, accordingly, reverse.
As the result of an innocent mistake based upon analysis of information received from the Social Security Administration, the employer and carrier computed the social security offset applicable to the claimant’s permanent total disability benefits using a monthly social security disability benefit of $1,343.10, rather than $1,119.20. Relying upon Thomas v. Sunland Training Center, 408 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), Colonel’s Table v. Malena, 412 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), and Pan American Bank v. Glinski, 584 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the judge of compensation claims held that the employer and carrier must repay the entire amount of all offsets taken, plus penalties and interest.
We conclude that those cases are distinguishable and, therefore, inapplicable to the facts of this case. In all of those cases, we held merely that, when a social security offset has been challenged by a claimant, one may not be taken until and unless the employer and carrier prove that it is warranted. Here, in contrast, there has never been any claim that the employer and carrier are not entitled to an offset. The only dispute is with regard to the amount of that offset. The holding of the judge of compensation claims would result in a substantial windfall to the claimant. Such a result defies fairness, logic and common sense. We can find nothing in either chapter 440 or relevant case law to support such a draconian penalty for an innocent mistake.
Accordingly, we reverse, and remand with directions that the judge of compensation claims enter an order directing the employer and carrier to repay only the portion of the offsets that exceeded the amount they were entitled to take, plus penalties and interest.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
KAHN and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Monroe v. Publix # 148 & ITT Hartford Ins. Co., 790 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…cial security disability benefits where “the fact of the overpayments is not in dispute and there is no question as to the amount.” Brown v. L.P. Sanitation, 689 So. 2d 332, 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); see generally Hardrives of Delray, Inc. v. O’Neal, 752 So. 2d 693, 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (noting that, while the amount was disputed, “there has never been any claim that the employer and carrier are not entitled to an offset”). Cf. Ramos v. Artco Store Fixtures, 763 So. 2d 1211, 1211 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). In th…
-
O'Connor v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sec. Svcs./Cambridge Integrated Servs. GRP Emp'r, 954 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…t 31, 1997, until August 13, 2005. We reverse this part of the order. The burden was on the employer (and the employer’s servicing agent) to prove the right to recover overpayments they claimed as an offset. See Hardrives of Delray, Inc. v. O’Neal, 752 So. 2d 693, 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (“[W]hen a social security offset has been challenged by a claimant, one may not be taken until and unless the employer and carrier prove that it is warranted.”); Santos v. K-Mart, 629 So. 2d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (…
Authorities Cited
- PAN Am. Bank & C.L.A.S. v. Glinski, 584 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Colonel's Table & Zurich-American Ins. Co. v. Malena, 412 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Thomas v. Sunland Training Ctr. & Div. of Risk Mgmt., 408 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)