STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MISSION INSURANCE CO., APPELLEE
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 Florida Department of Labor appealed an administrative order invalidating a rule that imposed penalties for late filing of workers' compensation reports. The court reversed, holding that the Division's rule was a permissible construction of its delegated statutory authority to prescribe the time and manner for filing required reports.
The Division did not exceed its delegated authority. Rule 38F-24.13 represents a permissible construction of section 440.185(9) read in context with section 440.185(5), which authorizes the Division to prescribe the time and manner for filing required reports. A failure to file at the prescribed time and manner falls within the statutory authorization to penalize failures to file.
[1] A rule promulgated by an administrative agency is a proper exercise of delegated authority when it is a permissible construction of the relevant statutes, especially when…
[2] A statute providing that carriers shall file reports "at such times and in such manner as the division may prescribe" permits the division to assess penalties for untimel…
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“the Division's interpretation is a permissible construction of section 440.185(9) in context with section 440.185(5), allowing the assessment of a penalty upon a failure to file required reports at such times and in such manner as the Division prescribes”
Establishes the court's holding that the Division properly interpreted its delegated authority by treating late filing as a failure to comply with prescribed filing requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMission Insurance Company was assessed a $100 penalty for failing to timely file a progress report on a workers' compensation claim. The Division had …
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 Civil Penalty Assessment cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
The Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workers’ Com pensation (hereinafter Division), appeals an administrative order by which Fla.Admin. Code Rule 38F-24.13 was invalidated as an improper exercise of delegated authority. We find that the hearing officer erred in this determination, and we reverse the order appealed.
Appellee Mission Insurance Company was assessed a $100 penalty for late filing of a progress report on a workers' compensation claim. By Fla.Admin.Code Rule 38F-3.16 the Division prescribed the time within which such reports are to be filed, in accordance with section 440.185(5), Florida Statutes, which provides that carriers shall file reports “at such times and in such manner as the division may prescribe.” Appellee’s penalty was assessed pursuant to Rule 38F-24.13, which states that:
Any carrier which fails to timely send any forms, reports or notice required by statute or the rules ... shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $100 for each such failure.
The hearing officer determined that in enacting this rule the Division exceeded its delegated authority under section 440.-185(9), Florida Statutes. This enactment, as then effective,1 provided that:
Any employee or carrier who fails or refuses to send any form, report, or notice required by this section shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100 for each such failure or refusal....
The hearing officer concluded that a failure to file under section 440.185(9) does not include untimely filing as addressed by Rule 38F-24.13. However, the Division’s interpretation is a permissible construction of section 440.185(9) in context with section 440.185(5), allowing the assessment of a penalty upon a failure to file required reports at such times and in such manner as the Division prescribes. Rule 38F-24.13 comports with this interpretation of the statutes, and in enacting the rule the Division has therefore not exceeded its delegated authority.
The order appealed is reversed.
WIGGINTON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur. . Section 440.185(9) was amended in 1986 so as to now expressly authorize a penalty for failure to timely file required reports. We find this amendment to be a clarification and expression of prior intent. Compare e.g., Lowry v. Parole & Probation Commission, 473 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Crose, 378 So. 3d 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…Ltd. P'ship, 679 So. 2d 302, 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Kaplan v. Peterson, 674 So. 2d 201, 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); State Dep't of Banking & Fin. v. Evans, 540 So. 2d 884, 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); State Dep't of Lab. & Emp. Sec. v. Mission Ins. Co., 507 So. 2d 137, 138 n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Though it is more frequently invoked in civil controversies, the Florida Supreme Court has been clear that this tool for divining legislative intent is available in criminal cases. As the court explained in Leftwich v.…
Authorities Cited
- Lowry v. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 473 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 1985)