Hunt v. Stratton, 93-1774
| Decision Date | 15 July 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-1774,93-1774 |
| Citation | 677 So.2d 64 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1655 Althan W. HUNT, Appellant, v. D.M. STRATTON, Jr., and Pacific Marine c/o FIGA, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William Dekle Day, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Douglass E. Myers, Jr., of Milne, Rizk, Myers & Buckingham, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees.
The claimant seeks review of a workers' compensation order determining the amount the employer/carrier are entitled to take as an offset of the permanent total disability (PTD) benefits paid him based upon the federal social security disability benefits he is receiving. We reverse.
The workers' compensation disability benefits offset statute, section 440.15(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), provides in relevant part:
Weekly compensation benefits payable under this chapter for disability resulting from injuries to an employee who becomes eligible for benefits under 42 U.S.C. s. 423 shall be reduced to an amount whereby the sum of such compensation benefits payable under this chapter and such total benefits otherwise payable for such period to the employee and his dependents, had such employee not been entitled to benefits under this chapter, under 42 U.S.C. ss. 423 and 402, does not exceed 80 percent of the employee's average weekly wage. However, this provision shall not operate to reduce an injured worker's benefits under this chapter to a greater extent than such benefits would have otherwise been reduced under 42 U.S.C. s. 424(a).
Because the workers' compensation offset cannot be greater than the offset which the federal government would otherwise have taken, the federal social security benefits offset must be computed before the state offset may be determined. See Trilla v. Braman Cadillac, 527 So.2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and cases cited therein. The federal social security benefits offset statute, 42 U.S.C. section 424(a), provides in relevant part:
If for any month prior to the month in which an individual attains the age of 65--
(1) such individual is entitled to benefits under section 223 [42 USCS § 423], and
(2) such individual is entitled for such month to--
(A) periodic benefits on account of his or her total or partial disability (whether or not permanent) under a workmen's compensation law or plan of the United States or a State ...
exceeds the higher of--
(5) 80 per centum of his "average current earnings," or
(6) the total of such individual's disability insurance benefits under section 223 [42 USCS § 423] for such months and of any monthly insurance benefits under section 202 [42 USCS § 402] for such month based on his wages and self-employment income, prior to reduction under this section.
In no case shall the reduction in the total of such benefits under sections 223 and 202 [42 USCS §§ 423, 402] for a month (in a continuous period of months) reduce such total below the sum of--
(7) the total of the benefits under sections 223 and 202 [42 USCS §§ 423, 402], after reduction under this section, with respect to all persons entitled to benefits on the basis of such individual's wages and self-employment income for such month which were determined for such individual and such persons for the first month for which reduction under this section was made (or which would have been so determined if all of them had been so entitled in such first month), and
(8) any increase in such benefits with respect to such individual and such persons, before reduction under this section, which is made effective for months after the first month for which reduction under this section is made.
The federal statute provides that the offset may not exceed the total social security benefits due a claimant and his family.
We find that the appropriateness of the workers' compensation offset claimed by the employer/carrier was determinable from the facts to which the parties stipulated below, but that the JCC's improper calculation of the federal social security offset adversely affected his determination of the proper workers' compensation offset. The parties' stipulations reflect that the claimant's average weekly wage (AWW) was $306.51 and his resulting compensation rate (without the offset) was $204.35, that his monthly federal social security benefits totaled $347.00, and that 80% of his monthly "average current earnings" (ACE) was $775.20. Prior to the reduction of his workers' compensation disability benefits by the employer/carrier's application of the offset provision, the claimant was receiving $255.45 per week in workers' compensation disability benefits ($204.35 in PTD benefits and $51.10 in PTD supplemental benefits) and $80.70 per week in social security disability benefits. Combined, these provided a total of $336.15 per week in disability benefits. The employer/carrier calculated an offset of $90.94, which reduced the claimant's total disability benefits to $245.21 per week, less than he had been receiving in workers' compensation benefits alone. The claimant argued that the offset law does not contemplate such a result, that section 440.15(9)(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 424(a) both support his position, and that those provisions mandated in this case that the employer/carrier's offset be no more than the total of his social security disability benefits. The JCC rejected the claimant's argument, which he characterized as a "novel idea," and adopted the employer/carrier's calculation of the offset.
We find that the claimant's interpretation of the relevant statutes is the proper one and that the employer/carrier's offset in this case is limited to $80.70, the amount of social security disability benefits he is receiving. We recognize that this finding will result in the claimant receiving $255.45 per week in disability benefits, more than 80% of his AWW. However, it is well settled that when, as in this case, the application of statutory provisions appears to indicate a conflict between or among them, the courts are required to read the provisions in a manner that resolves the apparent conflict. We interpret the first sentence of section 440.15(9)(a) as setting out the general parameters for determining the offset to which the employer/carrier is entitled, whereas the second sentence imposes an absolute limitation on the amount of the offset so calculated, so as not to reduce a claimant's total disability benefits more than they would have been reduced if the federal government had taken the offset.
In view of the apparent continuing confusion over application of the state and federal disability benefits offset provisions, and the failure of the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HRS DIST. II v. Pickard
...the JCC failed to include supplemental benefits in the initial calculation, as provided in the formula set forth in Hunt v. Stratton, 677 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), but otherwise affirm the JCC's ruling. Claimant, Ann L. Pickard, raises three issues on cross-appeal. We affirm the first t......
-
RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES v. Smith
...DCA 1999), approved, 781 So.2d 1070 (Fla.2001); Cruse Constr. v. St. Remy, 704 So.2d 1100, 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Hunt v. Stratton, 677 So.2d 64, 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We have also held more broadly that the "decision in Hunt prohibits recalculation of an offset based on any cost-of-li......
-
State v. Herny
...of the offset is allowed as of the date the claimant began receiving disability retirement benefits. Our decision in Hunt [v. Stratton, 677 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)] prohibits recalculation of an offset based on any cost-of-living increase in a particular benefit. However, it does not f......
-
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAM. v. Monroe
...for increases in the cost of living. See Americana Dutch Hotel v. McWilliams, 733 So.2d 536, 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Hunt v. Stratton, 677 So.2d 64, 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Section 440.15(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes (1987), governs the calculation of these [T]he injured employee shall receiv......
-
Collateral offsets to workers' compensation benefits.
...provided as PTD supplemental benefits." Cruse Construction v. Remy, 23 Fla. L. Weekly 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). See also Hunt v. Stratton, 677 So. 2d 64, 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). For example, if the Social Security offset results in a $50 per week offset, that amount remains the same so long ......
-
The social security disability offset: a comprehensive review of statutory and case law guiding reduction in Florida workers' compensation benefits.
...benefits within those benefits subject to the 80 percent cap of the social security offset is clear. (15) Hunt v. D.M. Stratton, Jr., 677 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), provided a methodology by which the offset may be calculated. The first step is to calculate 80 percent of the average wee......