NEW HOPE BAPTIST CHURCH AND GUIDEONE INSURANCE, APPELLANTS,
v.
ANGELA DURAN, APPELLEE
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.
In a workers' compensation case, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed an award of interest on a late-paid indemnity installment, but modified the order to clarify that the interest should be reclassified from the overpayment already received by the claimant rather than awarded as an additional payment.
The claimant is entitled to the $5 in interest owed under Florida Statute § 440.20(8)(a), but rather than awarding additional payment, the $5 shall be reclassified from the overpayment already received. The interest claim was properly tried by consent before the Judge of Compensation Claims.
[1] A claimant is entitled to statutory interest on a late-paid installment of indemnity benefits in a workers' compensation case.
[2] Overpayment of indemnity benefits on the same date as a late payment may be reclassified as statutory interest if the overpayment amount equals or exceeds the interest du…
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 is entitled to five dollars of interest as to the payment made December 29, 2008, and that, because Claimant agrees he was overpaid on that date by an amount greater than five dollars, five dollars of that payment is hereby reclassified as interest.”
The court's modification clarifying that the interest is reclassified from the overpayment rather than awarded as additional damages.
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/Carrier failed to pay an indemnity installment on its December 26, 2008 due date, instead paying on December 29, 2008. The parties agreed…
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 Interest On Late Payments cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation case, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) ruling it owes interest on a late-paid installment of indemnity benefits. For the reasons below, we modify the JCC’s order.
The parties agree that a payment due on December 26, 2008, was not paid until December 29, 2008. The parties also agree that the amount of interest due on the late payment is five dollars. See § 440.20(8)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007). The record indicates, and the parties agree, that the E/C overpaid that indemnity installment by more than five dollars. The JCC *171found “Claimant is owed interest” and ordered in the decretal portion of his order that “the claim for interest ... is granted” and “[i]nterest should be calculated pursuant to Florida Statute[s] § 440.20(8)(a).”
In the first point on appeal, the E/C argues the JCC erred in awarding interest because Claimant already received more than the amount owed. The JCC correctly found Claimant entitled to interest. We modify the order, however, to clarify that Claimant is entitled to five dollars of interest as to the payment made December 29, 2008, and that, because Claimant agrees he was overpaid on that date by an amount greater than five dollars, five dollars of that payment is hereby reclassified as interest. Cf. Hialeah Hosp. v. Lorenzo, 677 So.2d 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (remanding for determination of whether claimant reached MMI and, if not, for reclassification of wage loss benefits to TPD benefits).
The E/C’s second argument on appeal, based on Mieses v. Applebee’s, 14 So.3d 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), is misplaced because that case is distinguishable, in that the speculative claims for penalties and interest there were dismissed with the dismissal of the petitions for benefits. In contrast, here, the claim for interest, speculative at the time the petition for benefits containing that claim was filed, was properly placed before the JCC at a time after the payment was late, via Claimant’s trial memorandum and argument at the final hearing, and was tried by consent due to the E/C’s failure to object. See Dollar Gen. Corp. v. MacDonald, 928 So.2d 464, 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (holding issues in workers’ compensation cases may be tried by consent); cf. Sabal Transp. v. Brooks, 666 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding claim first raised in pretrial stipulation was properly before the JCC).
AFFIRMED as modified.
KAHN, ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ballard v. EDD Helms Grp. & Amerisure Ins., 79 So. 3d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…he directed that the $87.05 penalty due for a late payment of interest for a different time period be deducted from the overpayment. Had the award of an overpayment been proper, this would have been permissible. See New Hope Baptist Church v. Duran, 38 So. 3d 170, 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (modifying final order to reflect that five dollars of overpayment would be reclassified as interest). Because the JCC erred in finding that the E/C overpaid TPD benefits, the JCC erred in reducing the overpayment by the amo…
-
Schiano v. City of Hollywood Police Deparment/ Emp'r's Mut., Inc. (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Sabal Transp. & the Claims Ctr. v. Brooks, 666 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Dollar Gen. Corp. & Dollar Gen. Risk Mgmt. v. MacDONALD, 928 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Minerva Mieses v. Applebee's & Chubb Grp. of Ins. Cos., 14 So. 3d 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Hialeah Hosp. & Totura & Co. v. Lorenzo, 677 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)