BLADE OF ORLANDO, LLC
v.
DELSANTER
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.
Central States Diversified and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company appealed a workers' compensation award of lump sum PTD (permanent total disability) benefits to employee Walters. The court affirmed the constitutionality and retroactive application of the lump sum award framework but reversed the finding that the award was in Walters' best interest because the deputy failed to account for the loss of state supplemental benefits that would result from the lump sum payment.
The court affirmed the constitutionality of lump sum PTD awards and their retroactive application but reversed the finding that the award was in Walters' best interest because the deputy's determination did not account for the loss of the $143 monthly state supplemental benefit that would be discharged by a lump sum award.
[1] Lump sum payments of permanent total disability benefits discharge a claimant's right to state supplemental benefits.
[2] A deputy commissioner's finding that a lump sum award is in a claimant's best interest must be reversed if based on the continued receipt of supplemental benefits that wo…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Subsequent to the entry of the order herein, decisions of this court have made it clear that lump sum payments of PTD benefits operate to discharge a claimant's right to such supplemental benefits.”
Establishes the legal principle that rendered the deputy's best interest determination flawed retroactively.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant Walters received a state supplemental benefit of $143 per month as part of her pre-award financial resources. A financial expert testified re…
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 Discount Rate cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, GUYTE P., Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge.
Central States Diversified and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company appeal from an award by the deputy commissioner of lump sum PTD benefits pursuant to Section 440.-20(10), Florida Statutes. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.
Issues I and III presented by the employer/carrier (E/C), the constitutionality of lump sum awards of PTD benefits and the retroactive application of the 1983 amendment altering the discount rate and permissible amount of such awards have repeatedly been resolved adversely to the *30E/C s position herein and we therefore decline to address them further. See Cone Brothers Contracting v. Gordon, 453 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) cert. den. 461 So. 2d 113 (Fla.1985); Edgewood Boys’ Ranch Foundation v. Robinson, 456 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) cert. den. 462 So. 2d 1106 (Fla.1985).
We must reverse, however, with regard to the deputy’s finding that the lump sum award would be in claimant Walters’ best interest. The record below reveals that, as a part of her pre-award financial resources, Walters receives a state supplemental benefit in the amount of $143.00 per month. The financial expert who testified to Walters’ plan for use of a lump sum award relied on the continued receipt of this supplement, and it was this plan on which the deputy’s finding of best interest was made.
Subsequent to the entry of the order herein, decisions of this court have made it clear that lump sum payments of PTD benefits operate to discharge a claimant’s right to such supplemental benefits. Shipp v. State of Florida Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund, 481 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Buono v. City of Riviera Beach, 484 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Because the deputy did not have the benefit of these decisions in determining that the award herein was in Walters’ best interest, we must reverse and remand for determination of that interest in light of the loss of the state supplemental benefit which will follow a lump sum award.
Reversed and remanded.
ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Vamper, 579 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1991)
- Haven Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Kirian, 579 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1991)
- Cone Bros. Contracting & Whiting Nat'l Servs. v. Gordon, 453 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Shipp v. State of Fla. Workers' Comp. Tr. Fund, 481 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Buono v. City OF Riviera Beach & Gallagher Bassett Ins. Co., 484 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Edgewood Boys' Ranch Found. & N.H. Ins. Co. v. Robinson, 456 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- The Landing Grp. OF Tampa, Inc. v. Stefan R. Kifner and Tammy Kifner, 951 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)