Patterson v. Union Correctional Institution

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Patterson v. Union Correctional Institution

697 So. 2d 993, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9029, 1997 WL 441907

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 7, 1997

DocketCASE NO. 97-327

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 697 So. 2d 993 (Patterson v. Union Correctional Institution) 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

Patterson v. Union Correctional Institution, 697 So. 2d 993, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9029, 1997 WL 441907 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIS, Judge.

Officer Patterson was injured at work in September 1994 in a simulated exercise to demonstrate restraint of prisoners. There was no dispute over the compensability of his injuries. He has a twelve percent permanent partial impairment. The sole issue in this appeal is the proper interpretation of section 440.15(3)(b)l., Florida Statutes (1993), which states that supplemental benefits must be paid if:

a. The employee has an impairment rating from the compensable injury of 20 percent or more as determined pursuant to this chapter;

b. The employee has not returned to work or has returned to work earning less than 80 percent of the employee’s average weekly wage as a direct result of the employee’s impairment; and

e. The employee has in good faith at-, tempted to obtain employment commensurate with the employee’s ability to work.

Officer Patterson argues that he is entitled to supplemental benefits under this section despite his impairment rating of less than twenty percent because the use of semi-colons indicates that the requirements of the statute are being stated in the disjunctive or as alternatives to one another. It was stipulated below that the claimant satisfied requirements (b) and (c).

We reject claimant’s interpretation on the grounds that it is at variance with the plain language of the statute. The use of the word “and” clearly indicates that all of the enumerated provisions must be satisfied to prove entitlement to supplemental benefits. The Florida Legislature’s Guideline for Bill Drafting at 91 confirms that the use of the word “and” indicates the Legislature’s intent to make all parts of the sentence applicable in the conjunctive. See also Florida BirthRelated Neurological Injury Compensation Assn. v. Florida Div. of Administrative Hearings, 686 So.2d 1349, 1355 (Fla.1997); Lansford v. Broward County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 485 So.2d 845, 846-47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

Accordingly, the decision of the Judge of Compensation Claims denying supplemental benefits is AFFIRMED.

KAHN, J., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur.

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

DAVIS, Judge.

Officer Patterson was injured at work in September 1994 in a simulated exercise to demonstrate restraint of prisoners. There was no dispute over the compensability of his injuries. He has a twelve percent permanent partial impairment. The sole issue in this appeal is the proper interpretation of section 440.15(3)(b)l., Florida Statutes (1993), which states that supplemental benefits must be paid if:

a. The employee has an impairment rating from the compensable injury of 20 percent or more as determined pursuant to this chapter;

b. The employee has not returned to work or has returned to work earning less than 80 percent of the employee’s average weekly wage as a direct result of the employee’s impairment; and

e. The employee has in good faith at-, tempted to obtain employment commensurate with the employee’s ability to work.

Officer Patterson argues that he is entitled to supplemental benefits under this section despite his impairment rating of less than twenty percent because the use of semi-colons indicates that the requirements of the statute are being stated in the disjunctive or as alternatives to one another. It was stipulated below that the claimant satisfied requirements (b) and (c).

We reject claimant’s interpretation on the grounds that it is at variance with the plain language of the statute. The use of the word “and” clearly indicates that all of the enumerated provisions must be satisfied to prove entitlement to supplemental benefits. The Florida Legislature’s Guideline for Bill Drafting at 91 confirms that the use of the word “and” indicates the Legislature’s intent to make all parts of the sentence applicable in the conjunctive. See also Florida BirthRelated Neurological Injury Compensation Assn. v. Florida Div. of Administrative Hearings, 686 So.2d 1349, 1355 (Fla.1997); Lansford v. Broward County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 485 So.2d 845, 846-47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

Accordingly, the decision of the Judge of Compensation Claims denying supplemental benefits is AFFIRMED.

KAHN, J., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

697 So. 2d 993, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9029, 1997 WL 441907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-union-correctional-institution-fladistctapp-1997.