Exxon Co. v. Orlando

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Exxon Co. v. Orlando

444 So. 2d 584, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11703

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 2, 1984

DocketNo. AT-162

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 444 So. 2d 584 (Exxon Co. v. Orlando) 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

Exxon Co. v. Orlando, 444 So. 2d 584, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11703 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

McCORD, GUYTE P., Jr. (Retired), Associate Judge.

In this workers’ compensation appeal the employer contends that the deputy erred in approving for claimant a lump-sum advance of $23,686. We agree and reverse.

Before approving such an advancement, the deputy must determine that it is in the best interest of the claimant, is reasonable under the circumstances of the case, and will not materially prejudice the rights of the employer/carrier. §§ 440.-20(12)(a) and (d), Fla.Stat. (1981). The operative inquiry is whether the advancement is in “the best interest of the person entitled to compensation,” and the mere fact that the claimant can receive a higher interest rate upon the advanced funds, and thus a better return on his expected benefits, is insufficient to demonstrate that the lump-sum payment is in his best interest, see Court of Flags v. Outland, 382 So.2d 443, 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), just as it is insufficient to demonstrate material prejudice to the employer/carrier. See Sanford v. Alachua County School Board, 425 So.2d 112, 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Since the claimant has advanced no substantial justification for this lump-sum payment other than that he can receive this higher interest rate, we must conclude that the award is not supported by substantial competent evidence.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

MILLS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

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

McCORD, GUYTE P., Jr. (Retired), Associate Judge.

In this workers’ compensation appeal the employer contends that the deputy erred in approving for claimant a lump-sum advance of $23,686. We agree and reverse.

Before approving such an advancement, the deputy must determine that it is in the best interest of the claimant, is reasonable under the circumstances of the case, and will not materially prejudice the rights of the employer/carrier. §§ 440.-20(12)(a) and (d), Fla.Stat. (1981). The operative inquiry is whether the advancement is in “the best interest of the person entitled to compensation,” and the mere fact that the claimant can receive a higher interest rate upon the advanced funds, and thus a better return on his expected benefits, is insufficient to demonstrate that the lump-sum payment is in his best interest, see Court of Flags v. Outland, 382 So.2d 443, 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), just as it is insufficient to demonstrate material prejudice to the employer/carrier. See Sanford v. Alachua County School Board, 425 So.2d 112, 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Since the claimant has advanced no substantial justification for this lump-sum payment other than that he can receive this higher interest rate, we must conclude that the award is not supported by substantial competent evidence.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

MILLS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

444 So. 2d 584, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/exxon-co-v-orlando-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack