STATE OF FLORIDA AND DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT, PETITIONERS,
v.
RICHARD HERNY, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court addressed three certified questions regarding workers' compensation offset calculations under Florida law. The Court held that employers are not entitled to recalculate offsets based on yearly increases to supplemental benefits, include cost-of-living increases to Social Security and retirement benefits, or offset a health insurance subsidy provided to state disability retirees.
The Court answered all three certified questions in the negative. Employers are not entitled to recalculate offsets based on yearly increases to supplemental benefits, include cost-of-living increases to Social Security and retirement benefits in offset calculations, or include a health insurance subsidy within the benefits cap, as the subsidy is not a disability benefit but rather assistance for state retirees to pay health insurance premiums.
[1] An employer is not entitled to recalculate a workers' compensation offset based on the yearly increase in supplemental benefits when the employer initially included those…
[2] An employer is not entitled to include cost-of-living increases to Social Security disability and disability retirement benefits when calculating workers' compensation of…
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“Claimant became eligible to receive the health insurance subsidy because of his eligibility for state disability retirement. However it is apparent that the purpose of the subsidy is to assist state retirees, regardless of disability, in paying health insurance premiums. It is not intended as a disability benefit.”
Establishes that the health insurance subsidy is not a disability benefit and therefore not offsettable against workers' compensation benefits.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichard Herny received workers' compensation benefits and was eligible for state disability retirement benefits. The employer sought to take offsets u…
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 Workers' Compensation Offset cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, J.
We have for review a decision ruling upon the following two questions certified to be of great public importance:1
WHERE AN EMPLOYER TAKES A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION OFFSET UNDER SECTION 440.20(15), FLORIDA STATUTES (1985), AND INITIALLY INCLUDES SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS PAID UNDER SECTION 440.15(l)(e)l, FLORIDA STATUTES (1985), IS THE EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO RECALCULATE THE OFFSET BASED ON THE YEARLY 5% INCREASE IN SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS?
WHEN CALCULATING THE OFFSETS FOR SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY AND DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS PURSUANT TO ESCAMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT V. GRICE, 692 So. 2d 896 (Fla.1997), IS THE EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO INCLUDE COST-OF-LIVING INCREASES TO THOSE BENEFITS?
State v. Herny, 776 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct.29, 1999). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed in City of Clearwater v. Acker, 755 So. 2d 597 (Fla.1999), and Florida Plastering v. Alderman, 755 So. 2d 604 (Fla.2000), we answer the certified questions in the negative.
The First District did not certify petitioners’ third claim. However, we choose to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to Feller v. State, 637 So. 2d 911 (Fla.1994) and Savona v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 648 So. 2d 705, 707 (Fla.1995), which cited Savoie v. State, 422 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1982). We agree with the rationale set forth in the First District’s opinion below and approve its decision. In this remaining claim, petitioners argue that the judge of compensation claims and the First District Court of Appeal erred in refusing to include respondent’s health insurance subsidy within the cap on benefits under section 440.20(15), Florida Statutes (1985). We agree with the First District when it said:
Claimant became eligible to receive the health insurance subsidy because of his eligibility for state disability retirement. However it is apparent that the purpose of the subsidy is to assist state retirees, regardless of disability, in paying health insurance premiums. It is not intended as a disability benefit. As such, we do not believe that the subsidy constitutes a benefit from a “collateral source,” as that term is used in Escambia County Sheriffs Department v. Grice, 692 So. 2d 896, 898 (Fla.1997). See Dixon v. Pasadena Yacht & Country Club, 731 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (social security retirement benefits do not constitute a “collateral source” which may be offset against workers’ compensation benefits because they are not disability benefits).
Herny, at D2468-69. We therefore find that it was proper for the judge of compensation claims and the First District Court of Appeal to refuse to include respondent’s health insurance subsidy within the cap on benefits under section 440.20(15), Florida Statutes (1985).
For the reasons set forth above, we approve the First District’s decision in this case.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ„ concur. . This is the same question certified by the First District in Acker v. City of Clearwater, 755 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), and resolved in City of Clearwater v. Acker, 755 So. 2d 597 (Fla.1999).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Orange Cnty. Fire Rescue & Johns E. Co., Inc. v. Antonelli, 794 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…f this issue, we conclude that the initial amount of supplemental benefits should not be included in the calculation of a Grice offset. We rely on dicta in our opinion in State v. Herny, 776 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), approved on other grounds, 781 So. 2d 1067 (Fla.2001), which noted the apparent inconsistency in allowing the initial supplemental benefit payment to be included in the Grice offset while holding that subsequent increases in supplemental benefits should not be included. Since supplemental be…
-
McDADE v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Dist. & F.A. Richard & Assocs., Inc., 898 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…sources” to include sources which the employer at the time of the compensable accident in no way funded. More recent cases have excluded even sources to which the employer at the time of the compensable accident has contributed. See State v. Henry, 781 So. 2d 1067, 1068 (Fla.2001) (holding that Grice does not authorize any offset on account of a monthly health insurance subsidy the state pays its retired employees); City of Hollywood v. Lombardi, 770 So. 2d 1196, 1205 (Fla.2000) (holding that Grice does not a…
-
Raymond James & Assocs. & Chubb Servs. Corp. v. Smith, 860 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…y disability retirement and social security disability offsets ... to the initial benefit received by the claimant, excluding any cost-of-living increases,” without regard to when the claimant is accepted as permanently, totally disabled), approved, 781 So. 2d 1067 (Fla.2001). Ms. Smith’s contention, that the decisions in Conklin and Hemy already establish that the transition from temporary to permanent benefits is of no significance for purposes of calculating an offset, is problematic. It is impossible to a…
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
- THE Florida BAR v. Schell, 422 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1982)
- Florida Plastering v. Alderman, 755 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2000)
- RAY v. State, 755 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2000)
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Jenkins, 637 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1994)
- Escambia Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't v. Grice, 692 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1997)
- City OF Clearwater v. Judi Acker, 755 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1999)
- Savona v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 648 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1995)
- Acker v. City OF Clearwater, 755 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Dixon v. Pasadena Yacht & Country Club & Alexsis, Inc., 731 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- State of Fla. & Dep't of Ins. v. Herny, 776 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)