Acker v. City of Clearwater

• Decision Date: 17 August 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97-2719.,97-2719.
• Citation: 755 So.2d 651
• Parties: Judith ACKER, Appellant, v. CITY OF CLEARWATER, and City of Clearwater Risk Management, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

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. Nancy A. Lauten and Mark E. Hungate of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.

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, depending on the date of accident, increase benefits being paid by 5% times the number of years since the accident. See Department of Labor and Employment Security, Div. of Workers' Comp. v. Vaughan, 411 So.2d 294, 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)

. In Shipp v. State Workers' Comp. Trust Fund, 481 So.2d 76, 79 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), we stated:

[T]he purpose of supplemental benefits... is to protect recipients of periodic benefits from the long-term effects of inflation that reduce the value of a fixed amount of benefits.... Supplemental benefits are intended as an incentive to continue periodic payments and avoid the potential for inflation to diminish the value of such payments.

We conclude that recalculating the offset every year, so as to include the increase in supplemental benefits, frustrates the intended purpose of supplemental benefits.

We previously addressed this issue in Hunt v. D.M. Stratton, 677 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), as follows:

We note that both the federal and state

...