CITY OF LAKELAND AND THE CLAIMS CENTER, APPELLANTS,
v.
SCOTT DALE STAPLETON AND CRANE CARRIER COMPANY, 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.
A workers' compensation employer and carrier sought to recover a lien against an injured employee's settlement with a third-party defendant manufacturer. The trial court limited the lien to future indemnity proceeds and excluded future medical benefits. The appellate court reversed, holding that the workers' compensation statute does not permit trial courts to exclude medical benefits from a lien recovery.
A trial court does not have discretion to exclude medical benefits and limit recovery of a workers' compensation lien to only future indemnity benefits. The applicable statute requires that both medical benefits and indemnity benefits be subject to the lien.
[1] A workers' compensation carrier's lien on future benefits may be satisfied from both future indemnity and future medical benefits.
[2] The term "benefits" in the context of workers' compensation lien recovery includes both compensation and medical benefits.
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“does not allow the trial court the discretion to exclude medical benefits and limit recovery of the workers' compensation lien to only future indemnity benefits”
Establishes the core holding that statutory language prohibits trial court discretion to exclude medical benefits from lien recovery
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott Stapleton was severely injured while employed by the City of Lakeland and received workers' compensation benefits. He later settled a lawsuit ag…
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 Future Medical Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Scott Stapleton was severely injured in the course of his employment with the City of Lakeland. He received workers’ compensation benefits as a result of the accident, and he later sued and settled his claims against Crane Carrier Company, the manufacturer of the refuse truck on which he was working when he was injured. In the lawsuit against Crane Carrier, the City of Lakeland and the Claims Center, as employer and workers’ compensation carrier, filed a notice of lien for payment of compensation and medical benefits pursuant to section 440.39(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2002). After Mr. Stapleton settled his case against Crane Carrier, the trial court entered an order determining the equitable distribution of the employer/carrier’s lien, from which the City of Lakeland and the Claims Center have appealed. Because the circuit court erroneously refused to subject Mr. Stapleton’s future medical benefits to the lien, we reverse.
The circuit court found that the employer/carrier was entitled to a lien in the amount of $1484 “on the future indemnity proceeds” received by Mr. Stapleton. The employer/earrier has not disputed the amount of the lien, but it contends that the court erred when it limited its recovery to future indemnity proceeds and failed to subject the plaintiffs future medical benefits to its lien.
The plaintiff has conceded that the employer/carrier’s position has merit, and we agree. In City of Lakeland v. Morris, 627 So. 2d 572, 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), this court held, en banc, that the applicable statute, section 440.39(3)(a), “does not allow the trial court the discretion to exclude medical benefits and limit recovery of the workers’ compensation lien to only future indemnity benefits.” In so holding we agreed with the Fifth District’s decision in Tarmac of Florida/Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Gwaltney, 604 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), and receded from our earlier decision to the contrary, Payless Oil Co. v. Reynolds, 565 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). At the plaintiffs urging, the circuit court in this case erroneously relied upon Payless.
Accordingly, we reverse the order determining equitable distribution of the lien and remand for entry of an order consistent with City of Lakeland v. Morris, 627 So. 2d at 572.
Reversed and remanded.
STRINGER and SILBERMAN, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Payless OIL Co. & Cigna v. Reynolds, 565 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Tarmac of Florida/Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gwaltney, 604 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- City OF Lakeland & Johns E. Co., Inc. v. Morris, 627 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)