HECHT ET AL.
v.
PARKINSON
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 case addresses whether an employee's dependents are entitled to increased workmen's compensation benefits enacted after the injury but before the employee's death. The court held that benefits are determined by the law in effect at the time of the injury.
The rights of dependents to workmen's compensation benefits are determined by the law in effect at the time of the employee's injury. Therefore, the widow's claim is payable according to the schedule effective at the time of the employee's injury, not the amended schedule.
“It is held in this jurisdiction that the acceptance of the application of workmen’s compensation statutes by the employer, employee and insurance carrier constitutes a contract ‘ between the parties embracing the provisions of the statutes as tthey exist at the. time of any injury com-pensable under the terms of the statutes.”
Establishes the contractual nature of workmen's compensation and the principle that the law at the time of injury governs.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles William Hecht suffered a work-related injury and died within a year from that injury. After his injury but before his death, a statute was ame…
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 Retroactivity Of Statutory Amendments cases and more on FLexlaw
SEB'RING, Justice.
Charles William Hecht suffered an iri-jury by accident arising out.of .and intthe . course of his employment. Within one year after the occurrence of the accident he died as the result of the injury. Subsequent to the date of the accident, but prior to his death, section 440.16, Florida Statutes 1951, was amended so as to enlarge the benefits accruing to the widow in case of the death of an injured claimant, F.S.A. § 440.16.
The real question on-the appeal is whether the-rights of dependents to workmen’s compensation benefits are to be determined by the law,-in effect at the time of an employee’s injury or at the time of his death.
It is held in this jurisdiction that the acceptance of the application of workmen’s compensation statutes by the employer, employee and insurance carrier constitutes a contract ‘ between the parties embracing the provisions of the statutes as tthey exist at the. time of any injury compensable under the terms of the statutes. Fink v. Fink, Fla., 64 So. 2d 770; Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Bedingfield, Fla., 60 So. 2d 489; Chamberlain v. Florida Power Corporation, 144 Fla. 719, 198 So. 486; Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. Carlton, 151 Fla. 238, 9 So. 2d 359; Stansell v. Marlin, 153 Fla. 421, 14 So. 2d 892; Florida Forest and Park Service v. Strickland, 154 Fla. 472, 18 So. 2d 251; and Phillips v. City of West Palm Beach, Fla., 70 So. 2d 345. Inasmuch as the amendment to the statute involved in this controversy is one of substance rather than one of procedure, we have the view that the above principle is controlling, and that the widow’s claim, under section 440.16, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., is payable in accordance with the schedule effective at the time the employee sustained his injury, even though the amendment increasing such benefits became effective before the employee died.
Other questions raised by the appellants have been considered and are found to be without merit.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and MATHEWS, JJ-, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sullivan v. Mayo, 121 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1960)…Co. v. Smith, 156 Fla. 662, 24 So. 2d 42; Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Bedingfield, Fla.1952, 60 So. 2d 489; Fink v. Kink, Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 770; Phillips v. City of West Palm Beach, Fla.1954, 70 So. 2d 345; Hecht v. Parkinson, Fla.1954, 70 So. 2d 505. Applying the rule of the cited cases to the situation before us we are compelled to hold that the deputy commissioner at the outset and the full commission in its order affirming him, committed error in concluding that the substantive rights of the…
-
Gen. Guar. Ins. Co. v. Moore, 143 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…n carrier on a subrogation claim is controlled by statute in this state. The applicable statute in this case is Section 440.39(4), Florida Statutes, 1957, F.S.A. the law in effect at the time of the injury to Moore. See Hecht v. Parkinson, Fla.1954, 70 So. 2d 505; Employers’ Ins. Co. of Alabama v. Miller, Fla.App.1960, 121 So. 2d 813; Aaron v. Florida Power & Light Co., Fla.App.1961, 126 So. 2d 889. Said subsection (4) reads: “(4) If the injured employee or his dependents, as the case may be, shall fail to…
-
Recon Paving, Inc. v. Cook, 439 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…rtheless that retroactivity was purposed. By any standard, increasing or decreasing the dollar benefits payable for an industrial injury is substantive legislation. E.g., City of Lakeland v. Catinella, 129 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1961); Hecht v. Parkinson, 70 So. 2d 505 (Fla.1954). Except in this rather convoluted interpretation of the “not substantive” declaration, there is no evidence of retroactivity in the 1982 legislation. The “not substantive” declaration may therefore be taken at its word, applicable only t…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Toley Engebretsen v. Engebretsen, 154 Fla. 472 (Fla. 1944)
- Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y. v. Bedingfield, 60 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1952)
- Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. MRS. Ruby Carlton, 151 Fla. 238 (Fla. 1942)
- Chamberlain v. Fla. Power Corp., 144 Fla. 719 (Fla. 1940)
- Phillips v. City of W. Palm Beach, 70 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1953)
- Stansell v. MRS. Lucile Minish Marlin, 153 Fla. 421 (Fla. 1943)
- E. E. W. Est., Inc. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 153 Fla. 421 (Fla. 1943)
- Shope v. The City of Orlando & The Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 64 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1953)
- Fink v. Fink, 64 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1953)