CITY OF MIAMI SPRINGS AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, APPELLANTS,
v.
CARLOS SANCHEZ, 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 City of Miami Springs and Miami-Dade County appealed a workers' compensation judge's decision regarding whether an injured claimant was entitled to permanent total disability (PTD) supplemental benefits after reaching age 65. The court affirmed the decision on the first issue due to invited error, but reversed on the second issue, holding that a claimant injured and reaching PTD status before age 62 is not entitled to supplemental benefits after age 65.
The court affirmed the JCC's decision on the first issue because the employer/carrier invited any error by stipulating that only the stipulated facts need be considered. The court reversed on the second issue, holding that as a matter of law, a claimant injured and reaching PTD prior to age 62 is not entitled to supplemental benefits after age 65, and the employer/carrier is entitled to recoup any payments made after the claimant's 65th birthday.
[1] A party cannot complain on appeal about an error for which it is responsible under the invited error rule.
[2] A claimant injured and reaching permanent total disability status prior to age 62 is not entitled to supplemental benefits after age 65.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 a claimant is injured and reaches PTD prior to age 62, the claimant is not entitled to supplemental benefits after age 65”
Establishes the controlling legal standard from Wilkins that disposatively resolves the second issue
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant was injured and reached permanent total disability (PTD) status prior to age 62. The employer/carrier and claimant stipulated to certain …
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 Overpayment Of Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
The employer/carrier (E/C) raise four issues on appeal. However, issues one and two are redundant, as are issues three and four. Accordingly, they have been consolidated into two issues. For the reasons explained below, we affirm as to the first issue, and reverse as to the second.
The first issue concerns the E/C’s contention that the JCC overlooked evidence that Claimant was eligible for both social security disability and retirement benefits when he reached age 62, and consequently, the E/C is entitled to cease paying permanent total disability (PTD) supplemental benefits at that time. The transcript of the final hearing shows the E/C twice expressly agreed that the only evidence the JCC needed to consider in making his findings were the facts as stipulated by the parties. Thus, they cannot argue on appeal that the JCC erred in overlooking any other evidence. See Muina v. Canning, 717 So.2d 550, 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding that, under the “invited error” rule, a party cannot successfully complain about error for which it is responsible).
The second issue concerns the JCC’s ruling that, because the E/C failed to establish Claimant’s eligibility for social security retirement benefits when he reached age 65, Claimant was entitled to continued payment of PTD supplemental benefits after reaching that age. The JCC concluded the E/C’s payment of such benefits after Claimant reached 65 did not constitute an overpayment of benefits. However, we have held that, as a matter of law, “where a claimant is injured and reaches PTD prior to age 62, the claimant is not entitled to supplemental benefits after age 65.” See Wilkins v. Broward Cty. Sch. Bd., 754 So.2d 50, 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
*385Here, the parties stipulated Claimant was injured and reached PTD status prior to age 62. Thus, under Wilkins, he was not entitled to PTD supplemental benefits after age 65. Accordingly, the JCC erred in finding Claimant was entitled to continued payment of these benefits after age 65. The E/C is entitled to recoup any payment of supplemental benefits after Claimant’s 65th birthday. See § 440.15(12), Fla. Stat. (2007); Brown v. L.P. Sanitation, 689 So.2d 332, 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (superseded by statute on other grounds) (holding the enactment of section 440.15(12) was procedural, and thus retroactive).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BROWNING, C.J., WEBSTER, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. L.P. Sanitation & CNA Ins. Co., 689 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Muina v. Cornelia Canning and Judy Dew, 717 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Rhona Ottolina v. Miller Lakes Assocs., 717 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Tramodd Williams v. State, 754 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Gracette Wilkins v. Broward Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc., 754 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)