Lago Mar Properties, Inc. v. Manfred

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lago Mar Properties, Inc. v. Manfred

535 So. 2d 646, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2737, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5568, 1988 WL 133941

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 16, 1988

DocketNo. 88-646

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 535 So. 2d 646 (Lago Mar Properties, Inc. v. Manfred) 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

Lago Mar Properties, Inc. v. Manfred, 535 So. 2d 646, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2737, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5568, 1988 WL 133941 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

SHIVERS, Judge.

The claimant in this workers’ compensation appeal injured her back lifting a mattress while working as a maid for Lago Mar. She returned to her job at Lago Mar the next day but found that her back pain prevented her from performing her work. She also tried but was unable to perform maid service for her former landlord. Lago Mar eventually laid her off in June 1985.

Claimant filed a claim for benefits and a hearing was conducted. On February 16, 1988 the deputy commissioner (DC) ordered the employer/carrier to pay certain unpaid medical bills, temporary total disability benefits from December 1, 1985 through March 13, 1987, and wage loss benefits from March 13,1987, “for two years bringing all payments current in one lump sum_” We affirm the DC’s order except for the award of wage loss benefits that constitute a lump sum advance.

The DC’s order providing “wage loss benefits from March 13, 1987, for two years bringing all payments current in one lump sum ...” is in contravention of section 440.20(4), Fla.Stat. (1985). The statute provides that wage loss benefits “shall be paid monthly, subsequent to the termination of the period for which such payments are due_” Id.

Determination of wage loss benefits must be on a month-to-month basis with each month constituting a separate claim, the liability for payment of which accrues monthly. An award of lump sum advance wage loss benefits is improper. Murphree Bridge Corp. v. Brown, 492 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). We affirm that portion of the lump sum wage loss awarded for the period prior to hearing when claimant’s failure to conduct a job search was properly excused and we reverse that portion of the lump sum award that applies to the period after the December 10, 1987 hearing as it permits an unlawful advance of wage loss compensation.

AFFIRMED in part, and REVERSED in part.

BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

SHIVERS, Judge.

The claimant in this workers’ compensation appeal injured her back lifting a mattress while working as a maid for Lago Mar. She returned to her job at Lago Mar the next day but found that her back pain prevented her from performing her work. She also tried but was unable to perform maid service for her former landlord. Lago Mar eventually laid her off in June 1985.

Claimant filed a claim for benefits and a hearing was conducted. On February 16, 1988 the deputy commissioner (DC) ordered the employer/carrier to pay certain unpaid medical bills, temporary total disability benefits from December 1, 1985 through March 13, 1987, and wage loss benefits from March 13,1987, “for two years bringing all payments current in one lump sum_” We affirm the DC’s order except for the award of wage loss benefits that constitute a lump sum advance.

The DC’s order providing “wage loss benefits from March 13, 1987, for two years bringing all payments current in one lump sum ...” is in contravention of section 440.20(4), Fla.Stat. (1985). The statute provides that wage loss benefits “shall be paid monthly, subsequent to the termination of the period for which such payments are due_” Id.

Determination of wage loss benefits must be on a month-to-month basis with each month constituting a separate claim, the liability for payment of which accrues monthly. An award of lump sum advance wage loss benefits is improper. Murphree Bridge Corp. v. Brown, 492 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). We affirm that portion of the lump sum wage loss awarded for the period prior to hearing when claimant’s failure to conduct a job search was properly excused and we reverse that portion of the lump sum award that applies to the period after the December 10, 1987 hearing as it permits an unlawful advance of wage loss compensation.

AFFIRMED in part, and REVERSED in part.

BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

535 So. 2d 646, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2737, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5568, 1988 WL 133941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lago-mar-properties-inc-v-manfred-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack