From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

STOLZER v. MAGIC TILT TRAILER, INC

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jul 30, 2004
878 So. 2d 437 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

Summary

holding that a statutory amendment allowing an employer or carrier thirty rather than fourteen days to provide workers' compensation benefits before being responsible for attorney's fees was a substantive change in the statute

Summary of this case from The Bionetics Corp.. v. Kenniasty

Opinion

Case No. 1D03-2747.

July 9, 2004. Rehearing Denied July 30, 2004.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims Lauren L. Hafner.

William H. McKnight, Tampa, for Appellant.

Elizabeth P. Lynch and David K. Beach of Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue McLain, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.


Dean Stolzer, claimant below, appeals a final order of the Judge of Compensation Claims determining that section 440.34(3), Florida Statutes (2002) retroactively applied to the petition for permanent total disability benefits filed as a result of his compensable motor vehicle accident on April 11, 2000, and therefore an award of attorney's fees was precluded. We reverse.

That statute provides in pertinent part:

Regardless of the date benefits were initially requested, attorney's fees shall not attach under this subsection until 30 days after the carrier or employer, if self-insured, receives the petition.

The parties agree that this amendment to the attorney's fee statute, which allows the employer/carrier 30 days rather than 14 days within which to provide benefits before being responsible for payment of attorney's fees, is a substantive change to the statute. Accordingly, the established precedent from the Florida Supreme Court and this court is clear that the amendment cannot be retroactively applied. Sullivan v. Mayo, 121 So .2d 424, 428 (Fla. 1960); Phillips v. City of West Palm Beach, 70 So.2d 345, 346 (Fla. 1953); Vilches v. City of Dunedin, 738 So.2d 990, 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Baptist Manor Nursing Home v. Madison, 658 So.2d 1228, 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); City of Crestview v. Howard, 657 So.2d 73, 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995);Kraft Dairy Group v. Sorge, 634 So.2d 720, 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Mueller v. Searcy, 418 So.2d 397, 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Ship Shape v. Taylor, 397 So.2d 1199, 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); see also Ace Disposal v. Holly, 668 So.2d 645, 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

REVERSED.

KAHN, WEBSTER AND VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.


Summaries of

STOLZER v. MAGIC TILT TRAILER, INC

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jul 30, 2004
878 So. 2d 437 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

holding that a statutory amendment allowing an employer or carrier thirty rather than fourteen days to provide workers' compensation benefits before being responsible for attorney's fees was a substantive change in the statute

Summary of this case from The Bionetics Corp.. v. Kenniasty

holding that a statutory amendment allowing an employer or carrier thirty rather than fourteen days to provide workers' compensation benefits before being responsible for attorney's fees was a substantive change in the statute

Summary of this case from The Bionetics Corporation v. Kenniasty

holding that 2002 amendment to section 440.34, Florida Statutes, providing that attorney's fees shall not attach under that subsection until 30 days after the date the carrier or employer receives the petition for benefits, was substantive change and thus could not be applied retroactively

Summary of this case from Interstate Brands Corp. v. Blanco

holding that statutory amendment to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that allowed employer/carrier 30 days, rather than 14 days, within which to provide benefits before being responsible for payment of attorney fees, was substantive change to statute, and thus amendment could not be applied retroactively

Summary of this case from Walker v. Cash Register Auto Ins
Case details for

STOLZER v. MAGIC TILT TRAILER, INC

Case Details

Full title:DEAN STOLZER, Appellant, v. MAGIC TILT TRAILER, INC. and UNITED SELF…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Jul 30, 2004

Citations

878 So. 2d 437 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

Citing Cases

Menendez v. Progressive Express Insurance Co.

To avoid any confusion, we refer in this opinion to the text of section 627.736(11), as originally enacted in…

Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co, Inc.

To avoid any confusion, we refer in this opinion to the text of section 627.736(11), as originally enacted in…