CITY OF MIAMI, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK AROSTEGUI AND DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL AFFAIRS, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION TRUST FUND, 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 reversed the compensation judge's order requiring the employer to pay permanent total disability supplemental benefits, holding that the Workmen's Compensation Trust Fund was responsible for such payments and the claimant waived the claim by failing to litigate it in the prior 1990 proceeding.
The employer is not liable for permanent total disability supplemental benefits when the parties' agreement does not expressly elect employer payment, the Trust Fund was statutorily responsible, and the claimant failed to raise the issue in the prior 1990 proceeding.
[1] When a workers' compensation claimant fails to litigate a claim for supplemental benefits in a prior proceeding where the claim was mature and ripe for adjudication, the…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Miami and Frank Arostegui had an agreement regarding continued payment of permanent total disability benefits. The claimant later sought s…
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 Supplemental Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case, we reverse the order of the judge of compensation claims directing the employer to pay permanent total disability supplemental benefits, together with interest and penalties thereon. At the time of the agreement between the parties regarding continued payment of permanent total disability benefits, the Workmen’s Compensation Trust Fund, not the employer, was responsible for the payment of supplemental benefits. See § 440.15(l)(e), Fla. Stat. (1975); Platt v. R.C. Prop., 574 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Unlike the situation in Platt, in this case the parties’ agreement contains nothing that might fairly be read as an election by the employer to pay such benefits directly to the claimant. In addition, there is nothing in the subsequent dealings between the parties or in the order entered by the judge of compensation claims in 1990 which would permit such a conclusion. Moreover, it is apparent that this claim for supplemental benefits was mature and ripe for adjudication in 1990. Because the claimant failed to litigate the issue of his right to those benefits in the 1990 proceeding, the claim is considered waived, and the doctrine of res judicata precludes him from now raising it. Boynton Landscape v. Dickinson, 752 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
REVERSED.
WEBSTER, LEWIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scotty's Hardware, Inc. v. Northcutt, 883 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…claimant is barred by the doctrine of res judicata [*861] from raising a claim that he was entitled to a benefit, where he could have but failed to litigate the issue of his right to that benefit in prior proceedings. See City Of Miami v. Arostegui, 864 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (reversing award of permanent total disability supplemental benefits where claimant failed to litigate the issue of his right to those benefits in the prior proceeding, and thus, waived the claim); City of West Palm Beach v. Lewi…
Authorities Cited
- Boynton Landscape & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dickinson, 752 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Platt v. R.C. Prop. & Travelers Ins. Co. & Div. of Workers' Comp., 574 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)