DOLLAR GENERAL AND DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
CLIFFORD E. MCCOY, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
This workers' compensation case involved an employer's appeal of a compensability determination and a claimant's cross-appeal regarding temporary partial disability benefits and penalties. The court affirmed the compensability and denial of some benefits but reversed the denial of penalties and interest.
The court held that the denial of penalties and interest was erroneous because the employer did not comply with statutory requirements for timely payment or investigation and did not provide evidence of unawareness of facts supporting the obligation to pay. The judge also erred in denying interest.
[1] An employer/self-insured must pay workers' compensation benefits within seven days of when they become due or exercise the pay-and-investigate option to avoid penalties.
[2] Penalties and interest are ordinarily awarded for the late payment of workers' compensation indemnity 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“The denial of penalties was erroneous because the employer/self-insured neither paid the benefits within seven days of when they became due, as required by section 440.20(6), Florida Statutes (2003), nor exercised the pay-and-investigate option provided by section 440.20(4); and because the employer/self-insured did not offer any relevant evidence showing that it was unaware, as of the date on which claimant alleged the benefits were due, of facts supporting the obligation to pay those benefits.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for reversing the denial of penalties.
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/self-insured appealed the determination that the claimant's accident was compensable and the award of temporary partial disability benefi…
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 Penalties For Late Payment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case, the employer/self-insured seeks review of the determination that claimant’s accident was compensable; and claimant cross-appeals the denial of certain periods of temporary partial disability benefits, as well as the denial of his claim for penalties and interest on the award of temporary benefits for the period from November 18, 2003, through June 14, 2004.
We affirm without discussion the determination of compensability and the denial of certain periods of temporary partial disability benefits.
However, we reverse the denial of penalties and interest. The denial of penalties was erroneous because the employer/self-insured neither paid the benefits within seven days of when they became due, as required by section 440.20(6), Florida Statutes (2003), nor exercised the pay-and-investigate option provided by section 440.20(4); and because the employer/self-insured did not offer any relevant evidence showing that it was unaware, as of the date on which claimant alleged the benefits were due, of facts supporting the obligation to pay those benefits. See, e.g., Shaw v. Fla. Steel Corp., 846 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Bruno’s, Inc./Food World v. Bruner, 805 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Eastern Indus., Inc. v. Burnham, 750 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
For the same reasons, the judge also erred in denying interest on the past due benefits, which ordinarily is awarded pursuant to section 440.20(8), in addition to other penalties for late payment of compensation. In denying interest, the judge misapplied Beck Hospitality v. Gardner, 696 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), the facts of which are distinguishable from those in this case.
Accordingly, we remand to the judge of compensation claims with directions to grant claimant’s request for penalties and interest on the indemnity benefits awarded from November 18, 2003, through June 14, 2004.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
BARFIELD, WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schriber v. State, 959 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…rict courts have specifically held that a defendant is entitled to court-appointed counsel to advise and assist him in preparing his rule 3.170(Z) motion to withdraw his plea. See Mosley v. State, 932 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Banks v. State, 927 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Norman v. State, 897 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Smith v. State, 849 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Meeks v. State, 841 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Wofford v. State, 819 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The state argues t…
-
Jones v. City OF ST. Petersburg, 46 So. 3d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…ed from conditions over which the employer or carrier had no control. See Turner v. Miami-Dade County Sch. Bd., 967 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (explaining Employer/Carrier has burden of proving penalties should be excused); Dollar Gen. v. McCoy, 927 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (same); cf. Mitchell v. Sunshine Cos., 850 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding voluntary acceptance and payment of PTD benefits retroactive to a particular date relieves claimant of burden of proving date entitlement to PTD b…
-
Doretta Turner v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Gallagher-Bassett Servs., Inc., 967 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…s, the E/SA, not claimant, have the burden to offer “any relevant evidence showing that [they were] unaware, as of the date on which claimant alleged benefits were due, of facts supporting the obligation to pay those benefits.” Dollar Gen. v. McCoy, 927 So. 2d 169, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). The E/SA, however, presented no evidence that they were ever unaware, as of January 4, 2002, that they were required to pay claimant impairment benefits for her back injury. As such, it was incumbent on the JCC to award bot…
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
- E. Indus., Inc. v. Burnham, 750 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Bruno's v. Bruner, 805 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Shaw v. Fla. Steel Corp. & Specialty Risk Servs., Inc., 846 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Beck Hospitality & Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Duke Gardner, 696 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)