City of Miami v. Paredes

District Court of Appeal of Florida

City of Miami v. Paredes

638 So. 2d 208, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6489, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1367

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 23, 1994

DocketNo. 91-4150

StatusPublished

This text of 638 So. 2d 208 (City of Miami v. Paredes) 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. Paredes, 638 So. 2d 208, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6489, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1367 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON REMAND

PER CURIAM.

Our original decision in this case, City of Miami v. Paredes, 614 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), was reviewed by the supreme court as a companion case to City of Miami v. Bell, 634 So.2d 163 (1994). Pursuant to the supreme court’s opinion in Bell, we vacate those portions of our original decision which affirmed the award by the judge of compensation claims of benefits, plus penalties, for offsets taken by the City of Miami prior to July 14, 1989; reverse the award of such benefits, plus penalties; and remand for further proceedings consistent with the supreme court’s decision in Bell. That portion of our original decision which deleted from the order of the judge of compensation claims the language “subject to a lien in favor of FIPO of $513.57 per month,” substituting the language “subject to an offset in excess of the average monthly wage, which offset in this case is $513.57,” remains unaffected.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

ERVIN, BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION ON REMAND

PER CURIAM.

Our original decision in this case, City of Miami v. Paredes, 614 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), was reviewed by the supreme court as a companion case to City of Miami v. Bell, 634 So.2d 163 (1994). Pursuant to the supreme court’s opinion in Bell, we vacate those portions of our original decision which affirmed the award by the judge of compensation claims of benefits, plus penalties, for offsets taken by the City of Miami prior to July 14, 1989; reverse the award of such benefits, plus penalties; and remand for further proceedings consistent with the supreme court’s decision in Bell. That portion of our original decision which deleted from the order of the judge of compensation claims the language “subject to a lien in favor of FIPO of $513.57 per month,” substituting the language “subject to an offset in excess of the average monthly wage, which offset in this case is $513.57,” remains unaffected.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

ERVIN, BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

638 So. 2d 208, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6489, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-miami-v-paredes-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack