Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

July 21, 2017 by admin

Workers’ compensation — Permanent total disability — Judge of compensation claims erred in awarding PTD benefits based on claimant’s having reached “statutory” maximum medical improvement due to exhaustion of 104 weeks of temporary benefit payments — Decision in which Florida Supreme Court held that the 104-week limitation on TTD benefits under section 440.15(2)(a) was unconstitutional and quashed the district court opinion on which JCC relied applied retroactively

42
Fla. L. Weekly D1576a
Top of Form

Workers’
compensation — Permanent total disability — Judge of compensation claims
erred in awarding PTD benefits based on claimant’s having reached “statutory”
maximum medical improvement due to exhaustion of 104 weeks of temporary benefit
payments — Decision in which Florida Supreme Court held that the 104-week
limitation on TTD benefits under section 440.15(2)(a) was unconstitutional and
quashed the district court opinion on which JCC relied applied retroactively —
Statute at issue had not previously been construed by a “court of supreme
jurisdiction” — Further, at all times relevant to instant proceeding, review
of district court decision was pending in the supreme court and claims for the
requested benefits were filed after supreme court had accepted jurisdiction —
Remand for further proceedings

FT. WALTON BEACH MEDICAL CENTER/
BROADSPIRE, Appellants, v. TARA YOUNG, Appellee. 1st District. Case No.
1D16-2162. July 14, 2017. An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation
Claims. Nolan S. Winn, Judge. Date of Accident: January 4, 2013. Counsel: Will
B. Ramhofer and Jerry M. Hayden of Vernis and Bowling P.A., Miami, for
Appellants. Nicolette E. Tsambis of Smith, Feddeler, Smith, P.A., Lakeland, for
Appellee.

(PER CURIAM.) In this workers’
compensation appeal, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) argues the Judge of
Compensation Claims (JCC) erred on four grounds. We agree with the E/C that the
JCC’s award of permanent total disability (PTD) benefits is contrary to Westphal
v. City of St. Petersburg (Westphal II),
194 So. 3d 311 (Fla. 2016).
Accordingly, we reverse on that ground, and need not address the remaining
issues on appeal.

I.

In the April 15, 2016, merits order,
the JCC found Claimant entitled to PTD benefits, relying on this Court’s
opinion in Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg (Westphal I), 122 So. 3d
440 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (en banc). The JCC denied the alternative claims for
temporary benefits based on a finding that Claimant had been paid in excess of
104 weeks of temporary benefits. Further, the JCC found that Claimant was not
at maximum medical improvement (MMI) either physically or psychologically,
noting that even though she was physically released to work, she was not
released for work due to her mental condition. On May 12, 2016, the E/C filed a
timely appeal of those portions of the merits order awarding PTD, permanent
impairment benefits, and related penalties, interest, costs and attorney fees.
No cross-appeal was filed.

On June 9, 2016, the Florida Supreme
Court released Westphal II, quashing Westphal I. The supreme
court concluded that the 104-week limitation on the payment of temporary total
disability (TTD) benefits under paragraph 440.15(2)(a), Florida Statutes
(2009), is unconstitutional as it deprives an injured worker, who has not
reached MMI, of disability benefit eligibility for an indefinite period of
time. Westphal II, 194 So. 3d at 313.

II.

We review de novo whether a JCC
utilized the correct legal standard. See Banks v. Allegiant Sec., 122
So. 3d 983, 985 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“Our review of an erroneous application of
the law is de novo.”). “An appellate court is generally required to apply the
law in effect at the time of its decision.” Fla. Patient’s Comp. Fund v. Von
Stetina,
474 So. 2d 783, 787 (Fla. 1985).

In Florida Forest and Park
Service v. Strickland,
18 So. 2d 251, 253 (Fla. 1944), the Florida Supreme
Court addressed the retrospective/prospective application of an appellate
decision overruling a former decision, explaining:

Generally
speaking, therefore, a judicial construction of a statute will ordinarily be
deemed to relate back to the enactment of the statute, much as though the
overruling decision had been originally embodied therein. To this rule,
however, there is a certain well-recognized exception that where a statute has
received a given construction by a court of supreme jurisdiction and property
or contract rights have been acquired under and in accordance with such
construction, such rights should not be destroyed by giving to a subsequent
overruling decision a retrospective operation.

In Strickland, while the
appeal was ongoing, the supreme court “expressly overruled a previous decision
of the court . . . wherein we had given to the applicable statutes an entirely
different construction.” Id. at 252. Accordingly, the supreme court
declined to apply to Mr. Strickland’s case the effect of that overruling,
determining that it had only prospective application. Id. at 254. Here,
however, before Westphal II there had never been a construction of
paragraph 440.15(2)(a) by the “court of supreme jurisdiction.” Westphal I
was a decision by a court of intermediate appellate jurisdiction. Moreover, at
all times relevant to the instant proceeding, review of Westphal I was
pending in the supreme court, as the supreme court had accepted jurisdiction by
order of December 9, 2013, and the claims for the requested benefits were filed
in 2014 and 2015. As such, the holding in Westphal II applies to the
facts of this case.

Because the JCC’s determination of
entitlement to PTD benefits was based on the Claimant reaching “statutory MMI”
due to the exhaustion of 104 weeks of temporary benefit payments, the award of
those benefits was error. See Westphal II, 194 So. 3d at 320-21.
Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and remand for proceedings
consistent with Westphal II.

REVERSED and REMANDED. (ROWE, RAY,
and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.)

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982