Florida Department of Corrections v. Mulvaney

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Florida Department of Corrections v. Mulvaney

752 So. 2d 120, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2195, 2000 WL 241921

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 2000

DocketNo. 1D99-43

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 752 So. 2d 120 (Florida Department of Corrections v. Mulvaney) 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

Florida Department of Corrections v. Mulvaney, 752 So. 2d 120, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2195, 2000 WL 241921 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employer/carrier (E/C) appeal an order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) concerning the calculation of offsets to which the E/C are entitled. Based on recent decisions of this court and the Florida Supreme Court, we approve the JCC’s order. See, e.g., City of Clearwater v. Acker, 755 So.2d 597 (Fla.1999); State v. Herny, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2467, — So.2d -, 1999 WL 979474 (Fla. 1st DCA [121]*121Oct.29, 1999); Alderman v. Florida Plastering, 748 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), review granted, 732 So.2d 326 (Fla.1999). As in Hemy, we certify to the supreme court the following question of great public importance:

WHEN CALCULATING THE OFFSET FOR DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS PURSUANT TO ESCAMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT V. GRICE, 692 So.2d 896 (Fla.1997), IS THE EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO INCLUDE COST-OF-LIVING INCREASES TO THOSE BENEFITS?

AFFIRMED.

KAHN and WEBSTER, concur, and PADOVANO, concurring in part and dissenting in part with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employer/carrier (E/C) appeal an order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) concerning the calculation of offsets to which the E/C are entitled. Based on recent decisions of this court and the Florida Supreme Court, we approve the JCC’s order. See, e.g., City of Clearwater v. Acker, 755 So.2d 597 (Fla.1999); State v. Herny, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2467, — So.2d -, 1999 WL 979474 (Fla. 1st DCA [121]*121Oct.29, 1999); Alderman v. Florida Plastering, 748 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), review granted, 732 So.2d 326 (Fla.1999). As in Hemy, we certify to the supreme court the following question of great public importance:

WHEN CALCULATING THE OFFSET FOR DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS PURSUANT TO ESCAMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT V. GRICE, 692 So.2d 896 (Fla.1997), IS THE EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO INCLUDE COST-OF-LIVING INCREASES TO THOSE BENEFITS?

AFFIRMED.

KAHN and WEBSTER, concur, and PADOVANO, concurring in part and dissenting in part with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

752 So. 2d 120, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2195, 2000 WL 241921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-department-of-corrections-v-mulvaney-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack