Bonifay Manufacturing Co. v. Harris

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bonifay Manufacturing Co. v. Harris

691 So. 2d 1170, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4007, 1997 WL 186280

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 18, 1997

DocketNo. 96-3649

StatusPublished

This text of 691 So. 2d 1170 (Bonifay Manufacturing Co. v. Harris) 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

Bonifay Manufacturing Co. v. Harris, 691 So. 2d 1170, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4007, 1997 WL 186280 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The employer and servicing agent (e/sa) appeal an order in which the judge of compensation claims (JCC) denied a second motion to compel application for, or cooperation with, the e/sa in applying for Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits pursuant to section 440.15(l)(£)2.b., Florida Statutes (1994). The JCC found that if claimant accepted combined annual workers’ compensation and social security benefits, her combined benefits would be less than if she continued to receive workers’ compensation benefits alone. Relying upon this finding, the JCC held that section 440.15(l)(f)2.b. was substantive as to this ease, and therefore, not retroactive to claimant’s 1990 accident. The JCC’s order was premised upon the substantial reduction of benefits finding, but the JCC did not have the benefit of this court’s opinion in Hunt v. Stratton, 677 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), wherein this court held that when an employee receives SSD benefits, the employer/carrier’s offset can be no more than the total of the employee’s SSD benefits. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for reconsideration in light of Hunt v. Stratton.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BARFIELD, C.J., and KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The employer and servicing agent (e/sa) appeal an order in which the judge of compensation claims (JCC) denied a second motion to compel application for, or cooperation with, the e/sa in applying for Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits pursuant to section 440.15(l)(£)2.b., Florida Statutes (1994). The JCC found that if claimant accepted combined annual workers’ compensation and social security benefits, her combined benefits would be less than if she continued to receive workers’ compensation benefits alone. Relying upon this finding, the JCC held that section 440.15(l)(f)2.b. was substantive as to this ease, and therefore, not retroactive to claimant’s 1990 accident. The JCC’s order was premised upon the substantial reduction of benefits finding, but the JCC did not have the benefit of this court’s opinion in Hunt v. Stratton, 677 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), wherein this court held that when an employee receives SSD benefits, the employer/carrier’s offset can be no more than the total of the employee’s SSD benefits. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for reconsideration in light of Hunt v. Stratton.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BARFIELD, C.J., and KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

691 So. 2d 1170, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4007, 1997 WL 186280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonifay-manufacturing-co-v-harris-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack