ROBERT WORTHY, APPELLANT,
v.
JIMMIE CROWDER EXCAVATING AND CHARTIS CLAIMS, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the court affirmed the denial of a claimant's request for a $2,000 advance payment under Florida Statutes § 440.20(12)(c)2, holding that while the claimant satisfied the threshold requirement of not returning to equivalent employment, he failed to present evidence justifying why $2,000 specifically (as opposed to a lesser amount) was appropriate for his circumstances.
The court held that although a claimant who has not returned to equivalent employment satisfies the threshold requirement for an advance payment under § 440.20(12)(c)2, the claimant must present sufficient evidence showing why the requested amount (up to the $2,000 maximum) is appropriate for his particular circumstances. Without such evidence, the JCC cannot adequately consider the claimant's interests as required by statute.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims may order an advance payment of compensation not exceeding $2,000 upon a showing that the claimant has not returned to equivalent employmen…
[2] A claimant seeking an advance payment of compensation must present evidence demonstrating why the requested amount, not exceeding $2,000, is appropriate to adequately con…
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“An advance payment of compensation not in excess of $2,000 may be ordered by any [JCC] after giving ... due consideration to the interests of the person entitled thereto.”
This quote establishes the statutory framework authorizing advance payments and the requirement that the JCC consider the claimant's interests.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant had not worked since the date of his accident and was behind on multiple bills, including rent and car payments. At the hearing, claimant tes…
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 Workers' Compensation Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation appeal, Claimant argues that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) erred in denying his request for a $2,000 advance, which was made pursuant to section 440.20(12)(c)2., Florida Statutes. It is undisputed that Claimant, at the time of the hearing, had not worked since the date of accident. Claimant testified that he was behind on “a lot of bills,” had been paying the minimum monthly as far as rent, and was behind on his car payment. When asked by his counsel if he believed that it was in his best interest to receive a $2,000 advance, Claimant affirmatively responded.
In response to the argument of the Employer/Carrier (E/C) that Claimant failed to present any evidence that $2,000, as opposed to say $500, was appropriate, the JCC asked Claimant’s counsel why $2,000 was requested and noted that section 440.20(12)(c) does not say that an advance must be made in that amount. Claimant’s counsel argued that the E/C had the burden to refute Claimant’s testimony and prove that something less than $2,000 was more appropriate. The JCC denied Claimant’s request for an advance, finding that Claimant failed to present any evidence regarding what amount not exceeding $2,000 would be in his best interest. This appeal followed.
Section 440.20(12), Florida Statutes (2011), provides in part:
(c) In the event the claimant has not returned to the same or equivalent employment with no substantial reduction in wages or has suffered a substantial loss of earning capacity or a physical impairment, actual or apparent:
2. An advance payment of compensation not in excess of $2,000 may be ordered by any [JCC] after giving ... due consideration to the interests of the person entitled thereto.
Claimant correctly argues that he made the required showing that he had not returned to the same or equivalent employment with no substantial reduction in wages. However, as the statute provides, and as we have explained, once such a showing is made, a JCC may award an advance payment of compensation not in excess of $2,000 after considering a claimant’s interests. See Lopez v. Allied Aerofoam/Specialty Risk Servs., 48 So.3d 888, 888-89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Although Claimant testified that he was behind on certain bills and affirmatively responded when asked if a $2,000 advance would be in his best interest, he did not, as noted by the JCC, provide any evidence to show that $2,000, as opposed to something less *729than that, was appropriate in his situation. Without Claimant presenting sufficient evidence as to why a $2,000 advance was appropriate, the JCC was unable to adequately consider Claimant’s interests, as required under the statute.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Esis/ACE Am. Ins. Co. & Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Kuhn, 104 So. 3d 1111 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
-
Shannon v. Cheney Bros. Inc. & The Travelers, 157 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
-
Hattie Bonner v. Miami Dade Pub. Schools/Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc., 148 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
Authorities Cited
- Rocio Lopez v. Allied Aerofoam/Specialty Risk Servs., 48 So. 3d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)