General Fire & Casualty Co. v. First National Bank of Tampa ex rel. Stasio
Opinion
Appellant insurance company, a workmen’s compensation carrier, seeks review of an order of “Equitable Distribution” in a successful action on behalf of an injured employee against a third-party tort-feasor. It complains that its pro rata share of the amount recovered was too low for the reason that the trial court erroneously construed § 440.39(3)(a), F.S.1973, as limiting a carrier’s pro rata share to past and future compensation payable by the carrier but to include only past medical payments made. We cannot agree that the trial court erred on the point.
We think a complete reading of § 440.39, supra, considered in pari materia with the entire Ch. 440, F.S.1973, reveals that said section does not provide for nor permit the inclusion of future medical payments in the [194] discretionary determination by the court of an equitable pro rata distribution payable to a compensation carrier.1
Accordingly, there being no other matters meriting discussion, the judgment appealed from should be, and it is hereby, affirmed.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
306 So. 2d 193 (General Fire & Casualty Co. v. First National Bank of Tampa ex rel. Stasio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.