From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Florida Plastering v. Alderman

Supreme Court of Florida
Jan 20, 2000
755 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2000)

Opinion

No. SC94511.

Opinion filed January 20, 2000.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Great Public Importance First District — No. 1D97-4584.

Anthony Reinert, Miami, Florida, for Petitioners.

Jacob D. Maldonado of Maldonado Fernandez, P.A., Miami, Florida, for Respondent.


We have for review a decision on the following question of great public importance certified by the First District Court of Appeal in Alderman v. Florida Plastering, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2578 (Fla. 1st DCA Nov. 19, 1998):

WHERE AN EMPLOYER TAKES A WORKERS' COMPENSATION OFFSET UNDER SECTION 440.20(15), FLORIDA STATUTES (1985), AND INITIALLY INCLUDES SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS PAID UNDER SECTION 440.15(1)(e)(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (1985), IS THE EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO RECALCULATE THE OFFSET BASED ON THE YEARLY 5% INCREASE IN SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS?

We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed in City of Clearwater v. Acker, 24 Fla. L. Weekly S567 (Fla. Dec. 9, 1999), we answer the certified question in the negative and approve the First District's decision in this case.

It is so ordered.

HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Florida Plastering v. Alderman

Supreme Court of Florida
Jan 20, 2000
755 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2000)
Case details for

Florida Plastering v. Alderman

Case Details

Full title:FLORIDA PLASTERING, et al., Petitioners, vs. DENNIS ALDERMAN, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Jan 20, 2000

Citations

755 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2000)

Citing Cases

State v. Herny

We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed in City of Clearwater v.…

Alderman v. Florida Plastering

The supreme court held that the employer and carrier were not entitled to recalculate the offset based on the…