NEOMI LETCAVAGE, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN BIGGIE & CO., AND EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Retroactive Application Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of a workers’ compensation order denying her benefits. Letcavage asserts the deputy commissioner erred in applying Section 440.15(10)(a) retroactively and erred in denying her minimum $20 weekly payments pursuant to Section 440.12. We modify the order below and affirm as modified. Section 440.15(10)(a) provides for an employer offset for the amount of Social Security benefits received by the employee. In 1979, the statute was amended to include in the offset the amount of Social Security benefits paid for the employee’s dependents. We have previously held the statute applies retroactively to accidents occurring prior to the new statute’s effective date. Modern Plating Co. v. Whitton, 394 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami v. Jones, 593 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…d by the amount of pension benefits which were also payable. These decisions recognize that section 440.-09(4) provided for a reduction in compensation benefits. [*547] Claimant’s reliance on this court’s decision in Letcavage v. John Biggie & Co., 418 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), permitting retroactive application of the social security offset provision, section 440.15(10)(a), is misplaced. It is true that section 440.-15(10)(a), providing for an employer offset for the amount of social security benefits…
-
Klase v. Wendy's OLD Fashioned Hamburgers & Nationwide Ins. Co., 466 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…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.3 See also: Letcavage v. John Biggie & Co., 418 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Implicit in this court’s decisions in Davis and Letcavage is a finding that Section 440.12(2) is substantive law. Substantive statutes are prospective only, absent a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary. Van Bib…
Authorities Cited
- Modern Plating Co. v. Whitton, 394 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- State v. Davis, 416 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)