FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, PETITIONER,
v.
BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 Supreme Court answered a certified question of great public importance regarding workers' compensation offsets under Florida law. The court held that employers are not entitled to recalculate workers' compensation offsets annually based on yearly increases in supplemental benefits, affirming the First District Court of Appeal's reversal of the trial court's decision.
No. The employer is not entitled to recalculate the workers' compensation offset annually based on increases in supplemental benefits. The court answered the certified question in the negative, relying on the reasoning in City of Clearwater v. Acker.
[1] An employer taking a workers' compensation offset under section 440.20(15), Florida Statutes, and initially including supplemental benefits paid under section 440.15(1)(e…
[2] A court will not express an opinion on an issue not considered by the judge of compensation claims and not supported by evidence in the record.
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“WHERE AN EMPLOYER TAKES A WORKERS' COMPENSATION OFFSET UNDER SECTION 440.20(15), FLORIDA STATUTES (1985), AND INITIALLY INCLUDES SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS PAID UNDER SECTION 440.15(l)(e)(l), FLORIDA STATUTES (1985), IS THE EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO RECALCULATE THE OFFSET BASED ON THE YEARLY 5% INCREASE IN SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS?”
The certified question of great public importance that the court answered in the negative
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam M. Bowman, Jr. was injured during employment with Boise Cascade Corporation. The employer sought to recalculate the workers' compensation offs…
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 Workers' Compensation Offset cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
William M. Bowman, Jr., was injured during the course of his employment with Boise Cascade Corporation. On appeal the First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s determination that it was proper for the employer to recalculate the offset annually to include increases in supplemental benefits. The First District also certified the same question it had certified in Acker v. City of Clearwater, 755 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), approved, 755 So. 2d 597 (Fla.1999), to be of great public importance:
WHERE AN EMPLOYER TAKES A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION OFFSET UNDER SECTION 440.20(15), FLORIDA STATUTES (1985), AND INITIALLY INCLUDES SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS PAID UNDER SECTION 440.15(l)(e)(l), FLORIDA STATUTES (1985), IS THE EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO RECALCULATE THE OFFSET BASED ON THE YEARLY 5% INCREASE IN SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS?
See Department of Labor & Employment Sec. v. Boise Cascade Corp., 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2124, — So. 2d -, 1998 WL 597860 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 11, 1998). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed in City of Clearwater v. Acker, 755 So. 2d 597 (Fla.1999), we answer the certified question in the negative and approve the First District’s decision.
The First District did not certify for review the issue of whether Acker should be applied retroactively, although the Florida Department of Labor & Employment Security (the Department) raises this issue in its brief. We do not express an opinion on this issue since it was not considered by the judge of compensation claims and since the record is devoid of evidence that would permit a meaningful review. See Weaver v. Southern Bell, 703 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
Finally, Bowman has requested attorney’s fees be awarded against the Department. The law is clear that there must be statutory authority to award fees. See Shipp v. State Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund, 481 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Knight v. City of Miami, 421 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Bowman seeks fees pursuant to section 440.20, Florida Statutes (1973), but this section permits fees against the carrier. There is no provision awarding fees against the Department in this situation, and we therefore approve the First District’s denial of Bowman’s motion for fees.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Isom v. State, 800 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…original sentencing court considered a guidelines scoresheet indicating that it knew it was departing from the guidelines. . Review of this case was granted by the Supreme Court and thereafter dismissed as improvidently granted. See Isom v. State, 790 So. 2d 1092 (Fla.2001).…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Clearwater v. Judi Acker, 755 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1999)
- Acker v. City OF Clearwater, 755 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Shipp v. State of Fla. Workers' Comp. Tr. Fund, 481 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Weaver v. S. Bell & Bell S. Ins., 703 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Knight v. City OF Miami & Dep't of Labor & Emp. Sec., 421 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Bartolomeo v. Alvarez, 421 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)