SC96801 Florida Hrs District II v. Ann L. Pickard

State: Florida

Docket No: sc96801

Case Date: 02/15/2001

Plaintiff: SC96801 Florida Hrs District II

Defendant: Ann L. Pickard

Preview:Supreme Court of Florida
No. SC96801
FLORIDA HRS DISTRICT II, et al.,
Petitioners,
vs.
ANN L. PICKARD,
Respondent.
[February 15, 2001]
QUINCE, J.
We have for review a decision on the following question certified to be of
great public importance:1
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
1
The First District specifically certified for review “the same question certified in Acker.”
HRS District II v. Pickard, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1749, 1750 (Fla.1st DCA July 19, 1999).

YEARLY                                                                                                      5%   INCREASE   IN   SUPPLEMENTAL
BENEFITS?
HRS District II v. Pickard, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1749 (Fla.1st DCA July 19, 1999).
We have jurisdiction.   Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.   For the reasons expressed in
City of Clearwater v. Acker, 755 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1999), we answer the certified
question in the negative and approve the First District’s decision in this case.2
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ.,
concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal -
Certified Great Public Importance
First District - Case No. 1D98-1097
David A. McCranie of McCranie & Lower, P.A., Jacksonville, Florida,
for Petitioners
R. Jeremy Solomon of Solomon & Proctor, Tallahassee, Florida,
2
State of Florida, Division of Retirement (“FRS”) appeared as amicus curiae before the First
District Court of Appeal and in its brief asserted that “the use of benefits paid under the FRS to offset
workers’ compensation benefits abridges and reduces the right of FRS members to receive the full benefit
of payments made to them.”  We do not address this issue because it was not raised by either party before
this Court and FRS did not file an amicus brief before this Court.
-2-

for Respondent
-3-

Download sc96801.pdf