American States Insurance Co. v. Woodard

District Court of Appeal of Florida

American States Insurance Co. v. Woodard

433 So. 2d 20, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20067

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 10, 1983

DocketNo. AO-314

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 433 So. 2d 20 (American States Insurance Co. v. Woodard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American States Insurance Co. v. Woodard, 433 So. 2d 20, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20067 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this equitable distribution case the worker’s compensation insurance carrier challenges the trial court’s determination of the amount of its equitable lien, and urges that the trial court erred in failing to require the appellees to escrow a portion of their settlement money in order to insure payment of the lien against future compensation benefits. We affirm.

The trial court’s determination of the amount of the lien is supported by the evidence. Section 440.39(3)(a), Florida Statutes, is silent as to how pro rata distribution is to be carried out. In this case, the final judgment provides that the carrier may deduct 16.5% from any future compensation or medical bills paid. Such a provision is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Lee v. Risk Management, Inc., 409 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982). See, Risk Management Services, Inc. v. McCraney, 420 So.2d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

AFFIRMED.

LARRY G. SMITH, JOANOS and NIM-MONS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this equitable distribution case the worker’s compensation insurance carrier challenges the trial court’s determination of the amount of its equitable lien, and urges that the trial court erred in failing to require the appellees to escrow a portion of their settlement money in order to insure payment of the lien against future compensation benefits. We affirm.

The trial court’s determination of the amount of the lien is supported by the evidence. Section 440.39(3)(a), Florida Statutes, is silent as to how pro rata distribution is to be carried out. In this case, the final judgment provides that the carrier may deduct 16.5% from any future compensation or medical bills paid. Such a provision is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Lee v. Risk Management, Inc., 409 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982). See, Risk Management Services, Inc. v. McCraney, 420 So.2d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

AFFIRMED.

LARRY G. SMITH, JOANOS and NIM-MONS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

433 So. 2d 20, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-states-insurance-co-v-woodard-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack