Webber v. Volusia Co. Health & Division of Risk Management

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Webber v. Volusia Co. Health & Division of Risk Management

757 So. 2d 581, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5217, 2000 WL 552524

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 8, 2000

DocketNo. 1D99-457

StatusPublished

This text of 757 So. 2d 581 (Webber v. Volusia Co. Health & Division of Risk Management) 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

Webber v. Volusia Co. Health & Division of Risk Management, 757 So. 2d 581, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5217, 2000 WL 552524 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ALLEN, J.

The claimant appeals a workers’. compensation order by which the judge denied a claim which was based on a challenge to the amount of the offset which the employer applied against permanent total disability benefits. In denying this claim the judge ruled that the employer took a proper offset in accordance with Escambia County Sheriff's Department v. Grice, 692 So.2d 896 (Fla.1997). However, while the Grice offset pertains in this case pursuant to § 440.20(15), Fla. Stat. (1991), the offset may not include the cost of living adjustment for the claimant’s state disability retirement benefits. - HRS, State of Florida v. Pascual, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D596, — So.2d -, 2000 WL 242770 (Fla. 1st DCA March 6, 2000), petition for review filed, No. 00-590 (Fla. March 20, 2000); Eaby v. Volusia County, 752 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); State v. Herny, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2467, — So.2d -, 1999 WL 979474 (Fla. 1st DCA October 29, 1999), rev. granted, No. 96,962, — So.2d — (Fla. March 20, 2000); see also Florida Department of Corrections v. Mulvaney, 752 So.2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); University of West Florida v. Mixson, 752 So.2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); HRS District II v. Pickard, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1749, — So.2d -, 1999 WL 503456 (Fla. 1st DCA July 19, 1999), petition for review filed,. Ho. 96,801 (Fla. October 21, 1999). As Hemy further establishes, the offset likewise may not include the health insurance subsidy which the claimant receives in connection with her state retirement benefits. On remand the judge should also reconsider the claim for penalties, interest, costs, and an attorney’s fee, to the extent that this claim is affected by recomputation of the employer’s offset.

The appealed order is reversed and the case is remanded.

ERVIN and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.

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

ALLEN, J.

The claimant appeals a workers’. compensation order by which the judge denied a claim which was based on a challenge to the amount of the offset which the employer applied against permanent total disability benefits. In denying this claim the judge ruled that the employer took a proper offset in accordance with Escambia County Sheriff's Department v. Grice, 692 So.2d 896 (Fla.1997). However, while the Grice offset pertains in this case pursuant to § 440.20(15), Fla. Stat. (1991), the offset may not include the cost of living adjustment for the claimant’s state disability retirement benefits. - HRS, State of Florida v. Pascual, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D596, — So.2d -, 2000 WL 242770 (Fla. 1st DCA March 6, 2000), petition for review filed, No. 00-590 (Fla. March 20, 2000); Eaby v. Volusia County, 752 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); State v. Herny, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2467, — So.2d -, 1999 WL 979474 (Fla. 1st DCA October 29, 1999), rev. granted, No. 96,962, — So.2d — (Fla. March 20, 2000); see also Florida Department of Corrections v. Mulvaney, 752 So.2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); University of West Florida v. Mixson, 752 So.2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); HRS District II v. Pickard, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1749, — So.2d -, 1999 WL 503456 (Fla. 1st DCA July 19, 1999), petition for review filed,. Ho. 96,801 (Fla. October 21, 1999). As Hemy further establishes, the offset likewise may not include the health insurance subsidy which the claimant receives in connection with her state retirement benefits. On remand the judge should also reconsider the claim for penalties, interest, costs, and an attorney’s fee, to the extent that this claim is affected by recomputation of the employer’s offset.

The appealed order is reversed and the case is remanded.

ERVIN and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

757 So. 2d 581, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5217, 2000 WL 552524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webber-v-volusia-co-health-division-of-risk-management-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack