CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CLARENCE T. WATKINS, AARON L. SHEPARD, PERL E. TOTMAN, JAMES H. MAHAFFEY, LEO E. ELSCH, JACK Q. EARLY, DANNY L. WRIGHT AND LEMUEL E. ANDERSON, APPELLEES
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 illegally deducted workmen's compensation payments from employees' retirement funds, violating Florida Statute § 440.09(4), which prohibits such reductions.
A municipality cannot reduce an employee's retirement allowance by the amount of workmen's compensation benefits paid to the employee before retirement.
[1] A municipality is prohibited by Florida Statute § 440.09(4) from reducing an employee's retirement allowance by deducting workmen's compensation benefits paid to the empl…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 plain meaning of the language of § 440.09(4), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. is that the City of Miami is not authorized to reduce Herndon's retirement allowance by the amount of workmen's compensation benefit payments made to Herndon while he was still employed by the City of Miami and before he retired from that employment.”
The court applied the controlling precedent from City of Miami v. City of Herndon to establish the legal principle governing the case.
The City of Miami deducted from the retirement funds of eight employees certain monies representing workmen's compensation payments made to those empl…
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 Violation Of Statutory Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellees were plaintiffs below, having filed this law suit as a class action. In the trial court, they alleged that the city of Miami acted illegally when it deducted from their retirement funds certain monies representing workmen’s compensation payments that had been made to the appellees prior to their retirement. The trial Court granted a partial summary judgment as to the issue of liability, basing its decision upon City of Miami v. City of Herndon, Fla.App. 1968, 209 So.2d 487.
Having examined the germane facts of the instant case, we hereby hold that the trial judge was eminently correct when he applied the principles of Herndon, supra, to the case at bar. In Herndon, we stated that:
“The plain meaning of the language of § 440.09(4), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. is that the City of Miami is not authorized to reduce Herndon’s retirement allowance by the amount of workmen’s compensation benefit payments made to Herndon while he was still employed by the City of Mi*72ami and before he retired from that employment.”
It is undisputed that the members of the class bringing this action received a reduction in the retirement allowance by the amount of the workmen’s compensation payments that had been made to them. The above cited principle is applicable to the case at bar.
Affirmed.