Baughman v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 February 1955 |
| Citation | 78 So.2d 694 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | Wilford A. BAUGHMAN, Appellant, v. The AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, Lien Claimant, Appellee. |
Boone & Swanson, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Francis P. Conroy, Mark Hulsey, Jr., Marks, Gray, Yates & Conroy, Jacksonville, for appellee.
An employee secured a judgment against a third party tort-feasor and the judgment was paid. The employer's insurance carrier filed a notice setting out the amounts it has paid as compensation and medical benefits and indicating that it would undergo further expense to effect a cure of the employee's injury. This notice became a lien on the judgment for the amount that the court would decide to be the pro rata share of the insurance carrier after deducting the carrier's pro rata part of court costs and attorneys' fees. Sec. 440.39(3), Florida Statutes 1951, and F.S.A.
The judge ordered that the insurance carrier be reimbursed for the amount of compensation paid and the cost of medical benefits furnished and that it be allowed an additional sum for 'future compensation and (medical) benefits * * * reduced to its present value in the amount of $254.38.'
In his first question the appellant challenges the action of the judge in taking into consideration anticipated expenditures for medical care of the employee in arriving at the proper distribution of the proceeds of the judgment.
The parties seem to agree that no claim was made in the action for medical expense, past or future, and an examination of the complaint confirms the view. But from our study of the appellant's brief, it is apparent that he does not press the objection to the allowance to the appellee for medical benefits already received by him so that phase of the controversy is not decided. He does, however, urge the impropriety of an adjudication of future medical benefits. In this position we think he is correct and we reach the conclusion simply because of the unambiguous provisions of the statutes. Under Sec. 440.39(3), supra, in successful actions brought by the injured employee against third party tort-feasors, the court is empowered to determine the pro rate share of the employer or insurance carrier 'for compensation benefits paid', while the allowance under the next paragraph, applicable when actions are brought by employers or their insurance carriers upon failure of the employee to sue within one year, is not only for compensation and medical benefits paid, but also for 'furture compensation benefits payable, to be reduced to its present value * * *.' (Italics supplied.) See Arex Indemnity Co. v. George Radin and Florida Industrial Commission, Fla., 77 So.2d 839.
From the phraseology of these two paragraphs we cannot arrive at any construction but that in actions by the employee there is no provision for the recovery by the employer or carrier of amounts for future medical benefits.
So on this point we think the judgment must be reversed.
The appellant next questions the correctness of the judge's order reimbursing the insurance carrier in full for the amounts spent for compensation and medical care instead of applying the provision...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Harb
...v. Bedingfield, Fla.App.,1952, 60 So.2d 489; Arex Indemnity Company v. Radin, Fla.App.,1954, 72 So.2d 393; Baughman v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Fla.App.,1953, 78 So.2d 694; Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company v. Bennett, Fla .App.1961, 131 So.2d 499; London & Lancashir......
-
Jones v. ETS of New Orleans, Inc.
...738 So.2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion of this Court in Baughman v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 78 So.2d 694 (Fla.1955). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Because we conclude that the term "court costs" as used for p......
-
Security Mut. Cas. Co. v. Grice, 4766
...Inc., Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 515, which involves a recovery upon judgment on stipulation, and in Baughman v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 694, which involves a recovery upon trial, the trial court ordered full reimbursement; however, the question of the authority of ......
-
Burdine's, Inc. v. Drennon
...distributions under the Workmen's Compensation Act. See Arex Indemnity Co. v. Radin, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 393; Baughman v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 694; Insurance Company of Texas v. Rainey, Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 447. Admittedly in none of these cases was the propriety......