City of Miami v. Arostegui

District Court of Appeal of Florida

City of Miami v. Arostegui

864 So. 2d 508, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 55, 2004 WL 34544

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 8, 2004

DocketNo. 1D03-1222

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 864 So. 2d 508 (City of Miami v. Arostegui) 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

City of Miami v. Arostegui, 864 So. 2d 508, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 55, 2004 WL 34544 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, we reverse the order of the judge of compensation claims directing the employer to pay permanent total disability supplemental benefits, together with interest and penalties thereon. At the time of the agreement between the parties regarding continued payment of permanent total disability benefits, the Workmen’s Compensation Trust Fund, not the employer, was responsible for the payment of supplemental benefits. See § 440.15(l)(e), Fla. Stat. (1975); Platt v. R.C. Prop., 574 So.2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Unlike the situation in Platt, in this case the parties’ agreement contains nothing that might fairly be read as an election by the employer to pay such benefits directly to the claimant. In addition, there is nothing in the subsequent dealings between the parties or in the order entered by the judge of compensation claims in 1990 which would permit such a conclusion. Moreover, it is apparent that this claim for supplemental benefits was mature and ripe for adjudication in 1990. Because the claimant failed to litigate the issue of his right to those benefits in the 1990 proceeding, the claim is considered waived, and the doctrine of res judicata precludes him from now raising it. Boynton Landscape v. Dickinson, 752 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

REVERSED.

WEBSTER, LEWIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, we reverse the order of the judge of compensation claims directing the employer to pay permanent total disability supplemental benefits, together with interest and penalties thereon. At the time of the agreement between the parties regarding continued payment of permanent total disability benefits, the Workmen’s Compensation Trust Fund, not the employer, was responsible for the payment of supplemental benefits. See § 440.15(l)(e), Fla. Stat. (1975); Platt v. R.C. Prop., 574 So.2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Unlike the situation in Platt, in this case the parties’ agreement contains nothing that might fairly be read as an election by the employer to pay such benefits directly to the claimant. In addition, there is nothing in the subsequent dealings between the parties or in the order entered by the judge of compensation claims in 1990 which would permit such a conclusion. Moreover, it is apparent that this claim for supplemental benefits was mature and ripe for adjudication in 1990. Because the claimant failed to litigate the issue of his right to those benefits in the 1990 proceeding, the claim is considered waived, and the doctrine of res judicata precludes him from now raising it. Boynton Landscape v. Dickinson, 752 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

REVERSED.

WEBSTER, LEWIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

864 So. 2d 508, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 55, 2004 WL 34544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-miami-v-arostegui-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack