LEOCADIO SANTANA, APPELLANT,
v.
ATLANTIC ENVELOPE CO. AND GAB BUSINESS SERVICES, APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 1990-10-22
No. 90-287
SMITH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
568 So. 2d 528 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1990) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 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

A workers' compensation claimant appeals the denial of penalties and interest on underpaid temporary total disability benefits. The court reverses, holding that penalties and interest under Florida Statutes § 440.20(7) and (9) must be calculated on a per-installment basis when benefits are paid at an incorrect rate, not as a lump-sum adjustment.


Holding

Penalties and interest must be applied on a per-installment basis for each individual payment made at an incorrect rate. The portion withheld from each incorrect installment constitutes an 'unpaid installment' within the meaning of the statute, triggering penalties of ten percent or five dollars (whichever is greater) and interest at twelve percent per year or five dollars (whichever is greater) for each installment.


Headnotes

[1] Penalties and interest for incorrectly paid workers' compensation benefits are calculated on a per-installment basis, not on a lump-sum adjustment.

[2] An installment of workers' compensation benefits paid at an incorrect rate constitutes an "unpaid installment" for the purpose of calculating penalties and interest.

Previewing 2 of 5 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

“We agree with the claimant that the clear and logical intent of these two subsections is that the phrases 'any installment' and 'unpaid installment' must of necessity include an installment paid incorrectly. Thus, that portion withheld from the installment is, itself, essentially an unpaid installment within the meaning of the statute.”

Establishes the court's interpretation that an installment paid incorrectly triggers penalty and interest obligations under the statute.

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

Claimant was injured in a compensable accident on March 16, 1987, and received temporary total disability benefits. For 16 two-week periods, benefits …

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
WIGGINTON, Judge.

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Claimant brings this appeal from the order of the judge of compensation claims denying his claim for additional penalties and interest. We reverse.

The facts are not disputed by the parties. For purposes of this appeal they reveal that claimant was injured in a compensable accident on March 16, 1987. He immediately received temporary total disability benefits, but for 16 two-week periods the benefits were based on an incorrect average weekly wage. Ultimately, on August 2, 1988, the employer/carrier accepted the fact that claimant’s average weekly wage should have been six dollars higher per week and administratively corrected it, issuing a single check for the difference in addition to paying penalties and interest computed on the above lump-sum amount.

A claim for benefits had meanwhile been filed on August 4, 1987, seeking a determination of claimant’s average weekly wage and temporary total or temporary partial disability benefits, along with appropriate penalties and interest. Appellees defended at the hearing by alleging that all temporary total or temporary partial disability benefits had been paid and that appellant was not entitled to the claimed penalties and interest. To the contrary, it was claimant’s position that he was owed the greater of ten percent or five dollars in penalties and the greater of twelve percent or five dollars in interest for each individual installment of benefits that was paid at an incorrect rate, as provided in Section 440.-20(7) and (9), Florida Statutes (Supp.1986).

In her amended order filed January 11, 1990, the judge of compensation claims adopted the employer/carrier’s interpretation of section 440.20(7) and (9), to the effect that subsections (7) and (9) were not intended for application on a per pay-period basis for adjustments in the average weekly wage. The judge also added that the statute is specific in its application to benefits “not paid,” and does not apply to benefits paid incorrectly. Accordingly, the claim for additional penalties and interest was denied.

Section 440.20(7) provides in pertinent part that,

[i]f any installment of compensation ... is not paid within 14 days after it becomes due ... there shall be added to such unpaid installment a punitive penalty of an amount equal to the greater of 10 percent of the unpaid installment or $5, which shall be paid at the same time as, but in addition to, such installment of compensation_ (emphasis added).

Similarly, section 440.20(9) provides that,

n addition to any other penalties provided by this chapter for late payment, if any installment of compensation is not paid when it becomes due, the employer, carrier, or servicing agent shall pay interest thereon at the rate of 12 percent per year from the date the installment becomes due until it is paid.... The interest payment shall be the greater of the amount of interest due or $5. (emphasis added).

We agree with the claimant that the clear and logical intent of these two subsections is that the phrases “any installment” and “unpaid installment” must of necessity include an installment paid incorrectly. Thus, that portion withheld from the installment is, itself, essentially an unpaid installment within the meaning of the stat ute. The subsections also clearly provide that when each installment is paid incorrectly, interest and penalties shall attach to said installment. See King v. Lord Colony Enterprises, 400 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Thus, we reject the employer/carrier’s argument that the penalties and interest were to be computed from the lump-sum payment, grouping together the 16 installments.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the order of the judge of compensation claims is reversed and the cause remanded to allow for imposition of penalties and interest due and payable on the adjustments to each individual installment of compensation benefits rather than to the lump-sum adjustment. As noted by the claimant, this would amount to $80 in penalties and $80 in interest.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SMITH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • McCLURE v. Goldman, 594 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
    …, so the judge ordered that the claimant be credited for the excess recoupment. Sections 440.20(7) and (9), Florida Statutes, permit the assessment of penalties and interest upon an underpayment of compensation. See Santana v. Atlantic Envelope Co., 568 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The excess recoupment produced an underpayment, and the employer/carrier has not shown that this resulted from circumstances beyond its control. The carrier persisted in the underpayment even after ascertaining the amount of the…
  • Escambia Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Reeder, 648 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
    …So. 2d 763, 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (on mot. for reh’g) (JCC should have imposed penalties, with interest, where benefit checks were issued beyond 14-day deadline). Claimant’s cross-appeal position is supported by Santana v. Atlantic Envelope Co., 568 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), where claimant Santana was injured in March 1987 and immediately received disability benefits. However, for 16 two-week periods, his benefits were miscalculated, to his disadvantage. In August 1988, the employer/carrier accepted…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw