SPECIAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND, APPELLANT,
v.
SIESTA LAGO MOBILE HOMES AND ST. PAUL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
The Special Disability Trust Fund appeals an order granting an employer/carrier's claim for reimbursement under Florida's workers' compensation statute. The court reversed, holding that the employer failed to establish it had knowledge of the employee's preexisting impairment as required by statute, and that knowledge cannot be imputed from a former owner to a current owner without clear proof of the business transfer.
The employer/carrier failed to meet its burden of establishing entitlement to reimbursement under Section 440.49(2)(f)1, Florida Statutes, which requires the employer to prove knowledge of the preexisting permanent physical impairment prior to the accident. Knowledge of a former owner cannot be imputed to a current owner without clear proof of the nature and circumstances of the business transfer.
[1] An employer seeking reimbursement from the Special Disability Trust Fund must prove the employer knew of the claimant's pre-existing permanent physical impairment prior t…
[2] Knowledge of a claimant's pre-existing condition by a former owner of a business does not automatically impute knowledge to a subsequent owner for purposes of Special Dis…
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“It is the employer's burden to establish entitlement to reimbursement under the statute. Pursuant to 440.49(2)(f)l., the employer was required to establish that he knew of the pre-existing permanent physical impairment of the claimant prior to the 1980 accident.”
Establishes the statutory requirement and allocation of burden of proof for reimbursement claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGary Slumske, a maintenance worker at Siesta Lago Mobile Homes, sustained a back injury in April 1980. The employer admitted it had no actual knowledg…
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 Special Disability Trust Fund Reimbursement cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
The Special Disability Trust Fund (the Fund) appeals an order granting the employer/carrier’s claim for reimbursement pursuant to Section 440.49, Florida Statutes (1979). We reverse.
The employer/carrier sought reimbursement from the Fund for payments made related to an April 1980 back injury sustained by one Gary Slumske, a maintenance worker of the employer, Siesta Lago Mobile Homes. The employer admits it had no actual knowledge of the worker’s preexisting impairment prior to the injury. The employer/carrier seek to establish entitlement to reimbursement by imputing knowledge from the former owner to the current owner of Siesta Lago Mobile Homes.
It is the employer’s burden to establish entitlement to reimbursement under the statute. Pursuant to 440.49(2)(f)l., the employer was required to establish that he knew of the pre-existing permanent physical impairment of the claimant prior to the 1980 accident.
The former owner’s knowledge of the claimant’s pre-existing condition is not disputed. However, the record fails to support a finding of knowledge, whether by imputation or otherwise, of the current employer. There is considerable confusion as to the nature of the sale and the name of the current owner and employer. The only testimony on the change in the ownership of Siesta Lago Mobile Homes is the testimony of the claimant, a maintenance worker. There is some indication that Siesta Lago was in receivership when the claimant was hired. There is no indication of the nature of that receivership, only the claimant’s passing reference to “a bankruptcy thing.” There is reference to Steiner and Associates either as a management firm which operated the park during receivership or as an owner of the park. There is not even clear proof of the name of the current owner which is variously described as “Mobilelinium” or “Mobile Home Park.” There is no reference to the nature of the sale between the former and current owners. The record does not establish whether the new owner merely acquired the assets of Siesta Lago or assumed all of the rights and obligations of the former owner. There is insufficient evidence of the circumstances by which the claimant’s employment was continued at Siesta Lago after the ownership transfer. The employer/ carrier has failed to prove entitlement to reimbursement from the Fund.
A limited exception to the knowledge requirement is found in Special Disability Trust Fund v. Wheeler, 440 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), which appellees seek to have applied to the facts herein. Wheeler represents a situation in which an ongoing business contractually delegates the hiring of its employees to a union hall. This case is patently distinguishable from Wheeler, and we decline to expand Wheeler’s limited exception to the instant case, especially in light of the factual deficiencies of the record before us as mentioned above.
The order appealed is REVERSED.
WENTWORTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.A. Netzel, Inc. v. Special Disability Tr. Fund, 681 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…impairment, thereby entitling employers to reimbursement under the statute. We cannot agree. In our judgment, this provision addresses only the element of employer knowledge. As we stated in Special Disability Trust Fund v. Siesta Lago Mobile Homes, 473 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), it is the employer’s burden to establish entitlement to reimbursement under section 440.49, and, pursuant to section 440.49(2)(f)(1), the employer is required to prove that it knew of the preexisting permanent physical impairmen…
-
Armellini Express Lines, Inc. v. Special Disability Tr. Fund, 512 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…purpose and spirit of the statutory scheme establishing the Fund and providing for reimbursement. We think not. The e/c have the burden of proving entitlement to reimbursement from the Fund. Special Disability Trust Fund v. Siesta Lago Mobile Homes, 473 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). This is simply a case where the e/c did not carry that burden. AFFIRMED. SMITH, C.J., and ERVIN, J., concur.…
-
Special Disability Tr. Fund v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 627 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…jury or occupational disease that the preexisting physical condition is permanent and is, or is likely to be, a hindrance or obstacle to employment.” § 440.-49(2)(f)l., Fla.Stat. (1985); see Special Disability Trust Fund v. Siesta Lago Mobile Homes, 473 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In the instant case, the employer was not aware of any diagnosed psychiatric condition, but only knew that Roller was having emotional episodes at work apparently related to stress at home. The e/c argue that these [*1279] epis…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Beauregard v. Commonwealth Elec. & Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 440 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)