STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLANT,
v.
WESLEY A. DAVIS, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1981-12-18
No. YY-191
BOOTH, SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
416 So. 2d 1132 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1981) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Department of Transportation appealed a Deputy Commissioner's order denying an offset of social security benefits against workers' compensation payments. The court reversed the procedural holding but affirmed the minimum compensation requirement, holding that social security benefits cannot reduce workers' compensation below the statutory minimum of $20 per week.


Holding

The 1979 amendment is procedural and applicable to accidents occurring before its effective date. However, § 440.12(2) requires that workers' compensation benefits not fall below $20 per week even after offsetting social security benefits, because social security payments are not 'compensation' as defined under Chapter 440.


Headnotes

[1] A statutory amendment permitting consideration of dependents' social security benefits for offset purposes is procedural and applies to accidents occurring before the ame…

[2] Social security benefits paid to dependents are not considered "compensation" as defined by Florida Statutes § 440.02(11) for the purpose of calculating minimum workers'…

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

Key Quotes

“the change [to the statute] to be procedural and applicable regardless of the date of the accident”

Establishes that the 1979 amendment allowing offset of dependents' benefits applies retroactively to pre-amendment accidents

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Wesley Davis suffered a workplace accident on December 22, 1978. He became eligible for social security benefits under federal law, and his dependents…

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.

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal by the employer/carrier from a Deputy Commissioner’s order finding that social security benefits paid to the claimant’s dependents as a result of his December 22, 1978, accident could not be offset pursuant to Florida Statutes, § 440.15(10)(a),1 as amended in 1979. The basis of the Deputy’s holding was that the change in the statute to permit consideration of dependents’ benefits was substantive and, therefore, could not be applied to an accident occurring prior to the new statute’s effective date. We reverse in light of our decisions in Modern Plating Co. v. Whitton, 394 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), and General Development Corp. v. Price, 404 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), which held the change to be procedural and applicable regardless of the date of the accident.

Both parties have also pointed out that, if the offset for the dependents’ benefits is permitted, this court must decide whether Florida Statutes, § 440.12(2)2 still mandates that claimant receive minimum workers’ compensation benefits of $20 per week even though social security benefits payable to him and his wife and son exceed 80 percent of his average weekly wage, the maximum compensation permitted by § 440.15(10)(a), supra. There is no decisional precedent directly on point.3

The purpose and application of § 440.12(2) remains, as with predecessor provisions commencing with the original enactment of the Workmen’s Compensation Act,4 to provide a legislatively mandated minimum “compensation,” a term defined in § 440.02(H)5 of the present Act. Because § 440.12(2) provides a minimum for “compensation,” and because compensation is defined by § 440.02(11) as money payable “as provided for in this chapter,” we conclude that money payable under social security laws is not money payable under Chapter 440 or provided for therein. The prescribed minimum and offset provisions must in our opinion be thus construed consistent with the statutory maximum on compensation to affirm the order in this case on this point.

Accordingly, the order below is REVERSED in part, AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith.

BOOTH, SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur. . Florida Statutes, § 440.15(10)(a):

Weekly compensation benefits payable under this'chapter for disability resulting from injuries to an employee who becomes eligible for benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 423 shall be reduced to an amount whereby the sum of such compensation benefits payable under this chapter and such total benefits otherwise payable for such period to the employee and his dependents* had such employee not been entitled to benefits under this chapter, under 42 U.S.C. §§ 423 and 402, does not exceed 80 percent of the employee’s average weekly wage.. .. [emphasis supplied]

. Florida Statutes, § 440.12(2):

Compensation for disability resulting from injuries which occur after December 31, 1974, shall not be less than $20 per week....

. See, American Bankers Insurance Co. v. Little, 393 So. 2d 1063 (Fla.1980), wherein claimant’s workers’ compensation benefits were reduced to four cents per week after offset for social security benefits, but § 440.12(2) was, apparently, not considered.

. Laws of Florida, 1935, c. 17481, § 12.

. Florida Statutes, § 440.02(11):

“Compensation” means the money allowance payable to an employee or to his dependents as provided for in this chapter, [e.s.]
Other
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Because money payable under social security laws is not “compensation” as defined by § 440.02(11), the minimum compensation provision of § 440.12(2) is unaffected by the receipt of social security benefits. Claimant is entitled to the § 440.12(2) minimum compensation payments despite any § 440.15(10)(a) offset which would otherwise be applicable.

BOOTH, SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • City OF Miami v. Bell, 606 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
    …, 606 So. 2d 1192, (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), certifying the question of whether offset amount restored following Bar-ragan constitutes an "installment of compensation” for purpose of imposing penalties. . In State, Department of Transportation v. Davis, 416 So. 2d 1132, 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), this court held that despite Chapter 440’s providing for a social security offset [section 440.-15(10), now subsection 440.15(9) ], money payable under the social security laws is not "compensation.” . City of Miami v. Kn…
  • Neomi Letcavage v. John Biggie & Co., 418 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
    …st DCA 1981). Accordingly, the portion of the order dealing with offset is affirmed. The deputy commissioner, however, erred in failing to grant minimum weekly $20 payments as provided for in Section 440.12(2). Department of Transportation v. Davis, 416 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The order below is, therefore, modified to award Letcavage the twenty dollar per week payments. The order as modified is AFFIRMED. SHAW and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.…
  • …ermination. In determining that Section 440.15(9)(d) requires retroactive application, the deputy commissioner found, inter alia, that the 1983 amendment was “a direct legislative response to State of Florida, Department of Transportation v. Davis, 416 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982),” and the amendment “is procedural and not substantive in that the employee is not losing anything that the Social Security Administration could not otherwise take.” In arriving at this conclusion the deputy has failed to consid…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw