City of Miami v. Watkins

District Court of Appeal of Florida

City of Miami v. Watkins

237 So. 2d 71, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6098

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1970

DocketNo. 69-1081

StatusPublished

This text of 237 So. 2d 71 (City of Miami v. Watkins) 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. Watkins, 237 So. 2d 71, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6098 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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[72]*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.

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