BON SECOURS HEALTH SYSTEM AND GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
ANGELINA BONANNO, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed an award of permanent total disability supplemental benefits and interest to the claimant, but reversed and remanded the issue of employer/carrier-paid penalties for untimely payment. The court held that penalties may be excused when nonpayment results from conditions beyond the employer/carrier's control, and the trial judge failed to make necessary findings on this issue.
The award of permanent total disability supplemental benefits and interest on late payments is affirmed. The award of E/C-paid penalties is reversed and remanded because the JCC failed to make findings on whether the untimely payment resulted from conditions over which the E/C had no control, a necessary element for the imposition of penalties under Florida law.
[1] An award of permanent total disability supplemental benefits and interest on late payments will be affirmed if supported by the record.
[2] Penalties for untimely payment of workers' compensation benefits may be excused if nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer/carrier had no control.
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“Under the applicable statutory authority, the payment of penalties is excused where nonpayment results from "conditions over which the E/C had no control."”
Establishes the legal standard for excusing penalties under Florida Statute § 440.20(6)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe employer/carrier failed to timely pay the claimant's permanent total disability supplemental benefits. The Judge of Compensation Claims found the …
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 Penalties And Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation appeal, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) challenges an order entered by the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) that awards Claimant permanent total disability supplemental benefits and E/C-paid penalties and interest based on the untimely payment of said benefits. We affirm the JCC’s award of permanent total disability supplemental benefits and interest without further comment, but we reverse and remand on the issue of the imposition of E/C-paid penalties.
Under the applicable statutory authority, the payment of penalties is excused where nonpayment results from “conditions over which the E/C had no control.” See § 440.20(6), Fla. Stat. (2008); see also Jones v. City of St. Petersburg, 46 So.3d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding penalties should have been excused where untimely payment of supplemental permanent total disability benefits resulted from conditions over which the E/C had no control). Although the JCC found the payment of Claimant’s permanent total disability supplemental benefits was untimely, the JCC made no findings as to whether the untimely payment resulted from conditions over which the E/C had no control. Because it is not clear why the JCC imposed penalties in this case, and further, because the facts of this case could conceivably permit a finding of excusable delay under the law, the lack of factual findings supporting the imposition of penalties against the E/C is not harmless error.
Accordingly, the award of permanent total disability supplemental benefits, and interest on those late payments, is AFFIRMED, and the award of E/C-paid penalties on the benefits at issue is REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
LEWIS and MAKAR, JJ., concur.