From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State, Dept. of Transp. v. Matthews

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Aug 19, 1980
386 So. 2d 892 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

Opinion

No. PP-417.

August 19, 1980.

Appeal from the Deputy Commissioner, Michael DeMarko.

Jon D. White, Pensacola, for appellants/cross-appellees.

Norton Bond, Pensacola, for appellee/cross-appellant.


The carrier, in an attempt to recoup what it considered overpayment made as a result of the claimant's receipt of social security benefits, reduced the claimant's weekly compensation benefits. The Department of Transportation presents a timely appeal of the Deputy Commissioner's order directing reimbursement.

The deputy correctly determined that the Department could not retroactively reduce benefits because of the claimant's receipt of lump sum social security benefits. He erred, however, in allowing recoupment of excess payments made by the carrier after the commencement of social security benefits but prior to the Department's election to take appropriate weekly deductions. The order is accordingly reversed as to the issues raised in Points 2 and 3. Florida Power Light Co. v. Adkins, 377 So.2d 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) and Department of Transportation v. Lindsey, 383 So.2d 956 (Fla.App. 1980). The cause is remanded to the deputy for the entry of an order that comports with the Adkins and Lindsey decisions.

LARRY G. SMITH and SHAW, JJ., and WOODIE A. LILES (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.


Summaries of

State, Dept. of Transp. v. Matthews

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Aug 19, 1980
386 So. 2d 892 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
Case details for

State, Dept. of Transp. v. Matthews

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; DIVISION OF RISK…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Aug 19, 1980

Citations

386 So. 2d 892 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

Citing Cases

Swain v. Schweiker

Fla.Stat. § 440.15(10)(c). Florida courts have held that the state statute does not allow for either…