Acker v. City of Clearwater, 97-2719.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | BOOTH. |
| Citation | 755 So.2d 651 |
| Parties | Judith ACKER, Appellant, v. CITY OF CLEARWATER, and City of Clearwater Risk Management, Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 97-2719.,97-2719. |
| Decision Date | 17 August 1998 |
755 So.2d 651
Judith ACKER, Appellant,v.
CITY OF CLEARWATER, and City of Clearwater Risk Management, Appellees
No. 97-2719.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
August 17, 1998.
William H. Yanger, Jr., and Christopher J. Smith of Yanger & Yanger, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Katrina D. Callaway and Edward A. Dion, General Counsel, Department of Labor & Employment Security, Tallahassee, for Amicus Curiae.
BOOTH, Judge.
This appeal arises from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (hereinafter JCC) determining that yearly increases in permanent total disability supplemental benefits should be included in the calculation of the disability pension offset. We reverse, but certify a question to the supreme court.
In 1986, Appellant was injured in the course and scope of her employment. In 1994, she was determined to be permanently and totally disabled. The City of Clearwater (hereinafter City) began paying Claimant permanent total disability benefits, as well as permanent total disability supplemental benefits, pursuant to section 440.15(1)(e)(1), Florida Statutes (1985). Claimant also began to receive her disability pension from the City.
The City informed Claimant that an offset would be taken, pursuant to section 440.20(15), Florida Statutes (1985). The offset was taken to the extent that the permanent total disability benefits, permanent total disability supplemental benefits, and pension disability benefits exceeded 100% of Claimant's average monthly wage. The offset was initially calculated by adding together all benefits paid, including the permanent total supplemental benefits. The City continued on a yearly basis to recalculate the offset, adding the 5% yearly increase in supplemental benefits.
Claimant challenged the City's practice of recalculating the offset every year based on the 5% increase in permanent total disability supplemental benefits. The JCC determined that the City was correct in its calculations, but noted that including the yearly increase in supplemental benefits in the offset calculation eroded the purpose of supplemental benefits.
The purpose of permanent total disability supplemental benefits is clear. The legislature intended to partially offset the effect of inflation by requiring that Employers or the Workers' Compensation Administration Trust Fund,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HRS DIST. II v. Pickard, 98-1097.
...be recalculated based on annual increases in PTD supplemental benefits and cost-of-living adjustments. See Acker v. City of Clearwater, 755 So.2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), review granted, 727 So.2d 903 (Fla. Feb.8, 1999); Hahn v. City of Clearwater, 755 So.2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), review ......
-
State v. Herny, 99-180.
...to the collateral benefits. However, it candidly concedes that this court's subsequent decisions in Acker v. City of Clearwater, 755 So.2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), review granted, 727 So.2d 903 (Fla.1999), and its progeny, including Alderman v. Florida Plastering, 748 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 1st D......
-
State v. Herny, SC96962.
...and LEWIS, JJ., concur. -------- Notes: 1. This is the same question certified by the First District in Acker v. City of Clearwater, 755 So.2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), and resolved in City of Clearwater v. Acker, 755 So.2d 597...
-
City of Clearwater v. Acker, No. 93
...IS THE EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO RECALCULATE THE OFFSET BASED ON THE YEARLY 5% INCREASE IN SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS? Acker v. City of Clearwater, 755 So.2d 651, 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Hahn v. City of Clearwater, 755 So.2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Rowe v. City of Clearwater, 755 So.2d 137 (Fla. 1s......