THOMAS ECKERT, APPELLANT,
v.
PINELLAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE /PINELLAS COUNTY RISK MANAGEMENT, 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.
An employee appeals a compensation claims judge's order denying full impairment benefits on the ground that the employer/carrier improperly reduced benefits by 50% for weeks when the employee drew accrued leave. The court holds that previously accrued leave, not earned in the week it was drawn, cannot count as earned income for purposes of calculating the 50% reduction under Florida Statutes § 440.15(3)(c).
Previously accrued leave that was not earned during the week it was drawn cannot be included in the calculation of earnings during the weeks in which impairment benefits are payable for the purpose of reducing those benefits. The operative word in the statute is "earned," and since accrued leave was earned and vested at an earlier time, it does not qualify as income earned in the week it is drawn.
[1] Accrued leave previously earned and vested cannot be considered "income earned" during a subsequent week for the purpose of reducing impairment benefits under section 440…
[2] The word "earned" in the context of section 440.15(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2009), refers to income acquired during the specific week for which impairment benefits are be…
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“Impairment income benefits are paid biweekly at the rate of 75 percent of the employee's average weekly temporary total disability benefit not to exceed the maximum weekly benefit under s. [*162] 440.12; provided, however, that such benefits shall be reduced by 50 percent for each week in which the employee has earned income equal to or in excess of the employee's average weekly wage.”
The statutory provision at issue governing when impairment benefits may be reduced by 50%.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant was entitled to 169 weeks of impairment income benefits (IBs) under workers' compensation. The employer/carrier reduced IBs to 50% for 23 non…
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.
Claimant appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) to the extent that it denies payment of impairment benefits (IBs) “at the correct rate.” Specifically, Claimant argues that 23 non-consecutive weeks of the 169 weeks of IBs to which he was entitled were underpaid— more specifically, paid at half of their proper rate. We reverse.
The statute at issue is section 440.15(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2009), and the pertinent sentence reads:
Impairment income benefits are paid biweekly at the rate of 75 percent of the employee’s average weekly temporary total disability benefit not to exceed the maximum weekly benefit under s. *162440.12; provided, however, that such benefits shall be reduced by 50 percent for each week in which the employee has earned income equal to or in excess of the employee’s average weekly wage.
(Emphasis added). The Employer/Carrier (E/C), acting under this statute, paid only the reduced amount of IBs for the 23 weeks during which Claimant drew from his accrued leave (sick leave and vacation leave) instead of working the entirety of his scheduled hours. The E/C asserts that when Claimant drew the leave, Claimant’s resulting full paycheck constituted “income” equal to his average weekly wage (AWW). Claimant, however, persuasively argues that drawn leave cannot count toward his AWW for the week in which it is drawn because the leave was previously accrued, and thus had not been “earned” during each week at issue. It was earned and accrued at an earlier time.
The parties concede that the plain meaning of this statute will control. The parties disagree, however, on what that plain meaning is. Answering this question of first impression, we now hold that the operative word in the statutory sentence is the word “earned” and conclude that because the previously accrued leave was not earned during the week it was drawn but had already vested, it cannot be included in the calculation of earnings during the weeks in which IBs are payable for the purpose of reducing IBs.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
ROBERTS, C.J., WOLF and B.L. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.