JUAN LOPEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
IDEAL ROOFING SYSTEMS AND STIRLING COOKE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., 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.
The court held that the monetary limitation of section 440.16(7) is unconstitutional as applied to a claimant who is a citizen and resident of Mexico.
The widow of Juan Lopez sought survivor's benefits. The employer/carrier sought to limit recovery based on a statute applicable to aliens not residing…
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 Survivor'S Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The widow of Juan Lopez appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims which found that the monetary limits of section 440.16(7) apply to a claim for survivor’s benefits. We reverse.
The claimant applied for death benefits in the amount of $100,000, the maximum allowed under section 440.16(l)(b). The employer/carrier sought to limit the total amount of claimant’s potential recovery to $50,000 in accordance with section 440.16(7), which imposes that limit on the claim of “aliens not residents (or about to become nonresidents) of the United States or Canada.” ' The widow is apparently a citizen and resident of Mexico. It was noted that an earlier version of the statute was held unconstitutional in DeAyala v. Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance, 543 So. 2d 204 (Fla.1989). However, the 1987 Florida Legislature had amended the statute by increasing the amount payable to nonresident aliens, but still leaving that amount to be less than that payable to residents of the United States and Canada. The Judge of Compensation Claims noted that she did not have jurisdiction to declare a provision of the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act unconstitutional, Hensley v. Punta Gorda, 686 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), and accordingly held for the employer/carrier on this issue.
We reverse, finding that the monetary limitation of the current version of section 440.16(7) is unconstitutional in light' of the unambiguous holding of DeAyala. The cause is remanded for further proceedings t regarding the claim for survivor’s benefits.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WOLF, KAHN and BENTON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- De Ayala v. Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 543 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1989)
- Hensley v. Punta Gorda & Gallagher Bassett Serv., 686 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)