Elite Tile & Marble v. Burnett

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Elite Tile & Marble v. Burnett

731 So. 2d 725, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3390, 1999 WL 152461

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 23, 1999

DocketNo. 97-4913

StatusPublished

This text of 731 So. 2d 725 (Elite Tile & Marble v. Burnett) 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

Elite Tile & Marble v. Burnett, 731 So. 2d 725, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3390, 1999 WL 152461 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We agree that the judge of compensation claims should have allowed the employer and carrier to utilize the maximum family benefit to calculate the applicable social security offset. We set out the formula for calculating a social security offset in Hunt v. Stratton, 677 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We explained in Hunt that, to determine whether the preliminary offset amount exceeds the “offset which the federal government would otherwise have taken,” in applying the formula, the court must compare the amount of the preliminary offset from Step One of the formula with the “total amount of social security benefits due a claimant and his family, which is the maximum federal social security offset allowed under 42 U.S.C. § 424a(a).... ” Hunt, 677 So.2d at 67.

The judge of compensation claims did not use the maximum federal social security offset, as mandated by Hunt, in this step of the formula.¹ Instead, the judge used the amount of offset that the Social Security Administration had actually taken previously against Burnett’s benefits between May of 1992 and June of 1993. This was error. The offset in this case must be recalculated according to the Hunt formula by using the amount of weekly social security benefits ($216.30) as the maximum social security offset.

Likewise, we agree that the judge erred in denying the claim for reimbursement. In this case, the employer and carrier are entitled to reimbursement for overpayment of workers’ compensation benefits from May 21, 1995, the date the claimant was accepted as permanently and totally disabled. We find no error as to the issues raised in the cross-appeal.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR. BENTON, J., CONCURS WITH WRITTEN OPINION.

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

PER CURIAM.

We agree that the judge of compensation claims should have allowed the employer and carrier to utilize the maximum family benefit to calculate the applicable social security offset. We set out the formula for calculating a social security offset in Hunt v. Stratton, 677 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We explained in Hunt that, to determine whether the preliminary offset amount exceeds the “offset which the federal government would otherwise have taken,” in applying the formula, the court must compare the amount of the preliminary offset from Step One of the formula with the “total amount of social security benefits due a claimant and his family, which is the maximum federal social security offset allowed under 42 U.S.C. § 424a(a).... ” Hunt, 677 So.2d at 67.

The judge of compensation claims did not use the maximum federal social security offset, as mandated by Hunt, in this step of the formula.¹ Instead, the judge used the amount of offset that the Social Security Administration had actually taken previously against Burnett’s benefits between May of 1992 and June of 1993. This was error. The offset in this case must be recalculated according to the Hunt formula by using the amount of weekly social security benefits ($216.30) as the maximum social security offset.

Likewise, we agree that the judge erred in denying the claim for reimbursement. In this case, the employer and carrier are entitled to reimbursement for overpayment of workers’ compensation benefits from May 21, 1995, the date the claimant was accepted as permanently and totally disabled. We find no error as to the issues raised in the cross-appeal.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR. BENTON, J., CONCURS WITH WRITTEN OPINION.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

731 So. 2d 725, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3390, 1999 WL 152461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elite-tile-marble-v-burnett-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack