Sasso v. Ram Property Management
| Decision Date | 28 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 63708,63708 |
| Citation | 452 So.2d 932 |
| Parties | Fred V. SASSO, Petitioner, v. RAM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Irvin A. Meyers and Sherry L. Davis of Meyers & Mooney, Orlando, for petitioner.
Randy Fischer of Haas, Boehm, Brown, Rigdon & Seacrest, Orlando, for respondents.
This case comes before us on a petition to review a decision of the First District Court of Appeal, Sasso v. Ram Property Management, 431 So.2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The district court declared valid the state statute at issue here, and we therefore have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. We approve the district court decision.
Ram Property Management hired Sasso as a landscape gardener in 1979. Sasso was 78 at the time, but told Ram he was born in 1917, believing he wouldn't get the job if his real age was known. In September 1979, Sasso injured his arm on the job. Respondents paid temporary total disability and medical benefits until Sasso reached maximum medical improvement. His arm was permanently impaired, and Sasso was unable to find employment. He filed a complaint for permanent total disability and wage-loss benefits under section 440.15(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1979). The deputy commissioner found Sasso ineligible for permanent total disability payments, and denied wage-loss benefits because section 440.15(3)(b)3.d. 1 cut off wage-loss benefits at age sixty-five. Sasso appealed to the First District, which affirmed. The district court held that section 440.15(3)(b)3.d. did not deny Sasso access to the courts or unconstitutionally discriminate on the basis of age.
Sasso urges that the workers' compensation law, which abolishes the right to sue one's employer and substitutes the right to receive benefits under the compensation scheme, has denied him access to the courts without providing a substitute. In Kluger v. White, 281 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla.1973), this Court held that "the Legislature is without power to abolish [a right to redress for a particular injury provided by statute before the adoption of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution] without providing a reasonable alternative." Sasso argues that because he no longer may sue his employer for lost wages, and because wage-loss benefits are denied him because of his age, he has been denied any "reasonable alternative" to his right to sue, in violation of article I, section 21, of the Florida Constitution. 2
However, we find that Sasso has been provided with a reasonable alternative. His medical expenses were covered by workers' compensation benefits, and he received temporary total disability benefits during his convalescence. Permanent total disability benefits were available to him if he had qualified and any future medical expenses related to his injury are also covered. Sasso thus has received some of the compensation which a tort suit might have provided had he been forced to pay his own expenses and subsequently seek redress in court. Such partial remedy does not constitute an abolition of rights without reasonable alternative as contemplated in Kluger v. White. See Acton v. Fort Lauderdale Hospital, 440 So.2d 1282 (Fla.1983); Mahoney v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 440 So.2d 1285 (Fla.1983).
Sasso also urges us to find that section 440.15(3)(b)3.d. is unconstitutional because it denies wage-loss benefits based on the age of the injured worker. We defer to Judge Ervin's detailed analysis in the opinion below of the standard of review to be used when statutory discrimination is based on age. 431 So.2d at 211-18. We agree with Judge Ervin that there is no basis to conclude that an elevated standard of review is appropriate in this case. The "rational basis" test is the proper standard of review. In this case the district court found three legitimate state objectives furthered by the discriminatory scheme. 3 We cannot disagree that the objectives are legitimate, and that the age-based discrimination was rationally related to furthering those goals. We therefore must agree with the district court that section 440.15(3)(b)3.d. does not violate Sasso's right to equal protection under the law.
Accordingly, the decision of the district court is approved.
It is so ordered.
1 3. The right to wage-loss benefits shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Boan v. Richardson
...years of age solely on other rational basis grounds. In Sasso v. Ram Property Management, 431 So.2d 204 (Fla.App.1983), aff'd., 452 So.2d 932 (1984), the court upheld a statute then in force denying what its law called "wage replacement payments" to disabled workers over the age of sixty-fi......
-
Rayhall v. Akim Co., Inc.
...agency's lack of jurisdiction over issue; court lacks jurisdiction if appellant lacks standing or controversy not ripe), aff'd, 452 So.2d 932, appeal dismissed, 469 U.S. 1030, 105 S.Ct. 498, 83 L.Ed.2d 391 (1984). In the present case, these requirements have been satisfied. Accordingly, we ......
-
Martinez v. Scanlan
...death benefits did not deny access to courts), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1021, 106 S.Ct. 1210, 89 L.Ed.2d 323 (1986); Sasso v. Ram Property Management, 452 So.2d 932 (Fla.) (provision which cut off wage-loss benefits at age sixty-five did not deny access to courts), appeal dismissed, 469 U.S. ......
-
Gregory v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau
...College, 58 Ark.App. 209, 948 S.W.2d 108 (1997); Sasso v. Ram Property Management, 431 So.2d 204 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983), aff'd, 452 So.2d 932 (Fla.1984); Tobin's Case, 424 Mass. 250, 675 N.E.2d 781 (1997); Vogel v. Wells Fargo Guard Services, 937 S.W.2d 856 (Tenn.1996). For a discussion of ......
-
Medical Malpractice as Workers' Comp: Overcoming State Constitutional Barriers to Tort Reform
...App. 1982), aff'd, 440 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1983); see also Noel v. M. Ecker & Co., 422 So. 2d 1062, 1063 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982).193. 452 So. 2d 932, 933 (Fla. 1984).194. Id. at 933-34; see Morrow v. Amcon Concrete, Inc., 433 So. 2d 1230, 1232 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983); see also Newton v.......