Clay Hyder Trucking Lines, Inc. v. Manis, BC-30
| Decision Date | 25 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. BC-30,BC-30 |
| Citation | 471 So.2d 1329,10 Fla. L. Weekly 1567 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1567 CLAY HYDER TRUCKING LINES, INC., Self/Insured, Appellant, v. Carl MANIS, Jr., Deceased, Nadine B. Manis and Karen S. Manis, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bernard J. Zimmerman and Robert L. Dietz, of Zimmerman, Shuffield, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.
J. Michael McCarthy, Lakeland, for appellee Karen S. Manis.
No response from appellee Nadine B. Manis.
This appeal by the employer/self-insured (employer) raises the fundamental issue concerning the extent of an employer's duty to provide the correct benefits to the person entitled to those benefits. Although we decline to adopt a "bright line" rule applicable to that duty, we do hold that whatever may be the length beyond which an employer need not go in providing benefits, in the instant case the record supports the deputy's finding that the employer did not go far enough.
Karen Manis was the first wife of the employee, Carl Manis, killed in an industrial accident on November 12, 1980, and the mother of his two children. Nadine Manis was Carl's second wife and his widow.
The original hearing on this claim was held in April, 1981. An agreement was reached between Karen and Nadine to divide the death benefits which were to be paid by the employer pursuant to section 440.16, Florida Statutes (1979). An order was entered by a deputy commissioner awarding $105.50 per week to Karen as mother and natural guardian of the two children, and the same amount per week to Nadine, as widow.
It is the business practice of the employer to periodically check the eligibility status of all beneficiaries on death claims, section 440.16(2), by employing a private investigative agency on an annual basis after entitlement to benefits is determined. Additionally, approximately every six months the employer places a telephone call to the beneficiary in an effort to confirm continuing entitlement. Thus, in the instant case, in June, 1981, an agency was employed by the employer to follow up on information received by the employer indicating that Nadine was living with a man in Polk County, Florida. The agency reviewed the courthouse and marriage license bureau records of that county, and conducted periodic surveillance. The agency's report concluded that Nadine had not remarried and there was nothing to indicate that she had plans to remarry. It was later discovered that the man she was living with turned out to be her 87-year old father.
At this same time, the employer employed another investigative agency to check the courthouse records in Folkston, Georgia, where Nadine and the deceased were originally married. There was no evidence discovered there to support termination of benefits.
Following these investigations in June and July, 1981, numerous phone calls were allegedly made by the employer's personnel to confirm Nadine's eligibility. On September 2, 1982, Nadine sent a letter to the employer directing that it deposit her benefit checks directly into the Landmark Bank of Brevard County, Florida. Following receipt of this letter, the employer contacted the bank to confirm that the account was in Nadine's name, but did not examine the public records of that county. In the meantime, Nadine contacted the employer to assure it that she had not remarried and had no intention of remarrying.
In April, 1983, the employer hired a third investigative agency. After contacting a number of individuals who lived near Nadine's residence, the agency concluded that she had not remarried and had no intention of remarrying. Following that investigation, the employer called Nadine in July to confirm eligibility. She denied having remarried.
In February, 1984, the employer again employed the agency. Again, the conclusion was that Nadine had not remarried. The employer followed up on that conclusion by a phone call to Nadine to confirm her status. She informed the employer that she was planning to marry in March (she later recontacted the employer to change that date to April or May). The employer immediately rehired the investigative agency to conduct a supplemental investigation of Nadine's neighborhood. Despite the neighbors' lack of cooperation, due to their apparent awareness by then of the reasons for the investigation, the agency concluded that Nadine had not remarried, but had been dating an individual who she planned to marry. Public records were not checked.
On March 2, 1984, the employer received a letter from Nadine enclosing a marriage certificate indicating that she had remarried in Brevard County on August 22, 1982. Immediately, the employer terminated Nadine's benefits and commenced payment of full death benefits to Karen on behalf of the two minor children.
On April 5, 1984, the employer petitioned for a change of payment of death benefits. At the hearing, on Karen's motion, the deputy commissioner requested that evidence be presented regarding retroactive payment of benefits to the date Nadine remarried. At the conclusion of the hearing, the deputy ordered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. McTyre Trucking Co., Inc., 87-1233
...an employer-carrier monitored system, rather than a claimant-attorney monitored system.' " Clay Hyder Trucking Lines, Inc. v. Manis, 471 So.2d 1329, 1332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (quoting Barnes v. Parker, 464 So.2d 1298, 1299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)). Under the Workers' Compensation Law, an employe......