Special Disability Trust Fund, Department of Labor & Employment Security v. E.J. Sales & Service

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Special Disability Trust Fund, Department of Labor & Employment Security v. E.J. Sales & Service

497 So. 2d 684, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2272, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10394

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 29, 1986

DocketNo. BL-53

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 497 So. 2d 684 (Special Disability Trust Fund, Department of Labor & Employment Security v. E.J. Sales & Service) 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

Special Disability Trust Fund, Department of Labor & Employment Security v. E.J. Sales & Service, 497 So. 2d 684, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2272, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10394 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

WENTWORTH, Judge.

The Special Disability Trust Fund appeals a workers’ compensation order by which a lump sum advance payment of compensation benefits was approved. We find that such approval was not in accordance with the applicable standards for lump sum payments, and we therefore reverse the order appealed.

Section 440.20(12)(a), Florida Statutes, expresses “the stated policy ... that it is in the best interests of the injured worker that he receive disability or wage-loss payments periodically.” Lump sum payments are nevertheless permitted in appropriate circumstances, but section 440.20(13)(d), Florida Statutes, requires a determination that a lump sum payment be in the claimant’s “best interests.” In the present case this determination was made upon a finding that the lump sum advance would counteract the effects of inflation, alleviate debt and provide economic peace of mind, and result in a substantial increase in claimant’s monthly income. These factors are predicated upon a disparity between the [685]*685statutory discount rate and the prevailing money market investment rate, and this advantage would be generally common to all claimants serviced by carriers subject to the same statute in the current financial market. As Jensen Construction Co. v. Sowers, 480 So.2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), indicates, such money market considerations may not serve as the predominant factor motivating a lump sum payment. We therefore conclude that the deputy’s approval of a lump sum payment in the present case was an abuse of discretion.

The order appealed is reversed.

BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS, J., concur.

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

WENTWORTH, Judge.

The Special Disability Trust Fund appeals a workers’ compensation order by which a lump sum advance payment of compensation benefits was approved. We find that such approval was not in accordance with the applicable standards for lump sum payments, and we therefore reverse the order appealed.

Section 440.20(12)(a), Florida Statutes, expresses “the stated policy ... that it is in the best interests of the injured worker that he receive disability or wage-loss payments periodically.” Lump sum payments are nevertheless permitted in appropriate circumstances, but section 440.20(13)(d), Florida Statutes, requires a determination that a lump sum payment be in the claimant’s “best interests.” In the present case this determination was made upon a finding that the lump sum advance would counteract the effects of inflation, alleviate debt and provide economic peace of mind, and result in a substantial increase in claimant’s monthly income. These factors are predicated upon a disparity between the [685]*685statutory discount rate and the prevailing money market investment rate, and this advantage would be generally common to all claimants serviced by carriers subject to the same statute in the current financial market. As Jensen Construction Co. v. Sowers, 480 So.2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), indicates, such money market considerations may not serve as the predominant factor motivating a lump sum payment. We therefore conclude that the deputy’s approval of a lump sum payment in the present case was an abuse of discretion.

The order appealed is reversed.

BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 So. 2d 684, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2272, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/special-disability-trust-fund-department-of-labor-employment-security-v-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack