The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . contributions, decreasing workers’ compensation benefits on account of pension benefits runs afoul of section 440.21 . . . offset; rather, we hold only that where the fund is employee-contributory, it would violate section 440.21 . . . Section 440.21, now as in 1993, invalidates “[a]ny agreement by an employee to pay any portion of premium . . . for the purpose of providing” workers’ compensation benefits — a circumstance prohibited by section 440.21 . . . The E/SA argues section 440.21 does not apply to the situation here because the inline-of-duty disability . . .
. . . compensation benefits from an employee’s pension benefits in contradiction to the provisions of section 440.21 . . .
. . . binding, and consistent with the general proscriptive treatment of settlements contained in section 440.21 . . . See §§ 440.20(ll)(c) & 440.21(2), Fla. Stat. (2003).” Vallecillo, 982 So.2d at 735. . . .
. . . ." § 440.21(a), Fla. Stat. (2007). . . .
. . . . §§ 1-440.15(a)(5) (identifying the method of execution); 1-440.21(2) (addressing nature of garnishment . . .
. . . Section 440.20(1 l)(c) reads: (c) Notwithstanding s. 440.21(2), when a claimant is represented by counsel . . . This statutory revision added the following: (c) Notwithstanding s. 440.21(2), when a claimant is represented . . .
. . . Gen.Stat. 1-440.21. . . .
. . . See §§ 440.20(11)(c) & 440.21(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . .
. . . the alleged predicate felonies (out of state, offenses were proper and within the meaning of CPL § 440.21 . . .
. . . See §§ 440.20(ll)(c), 440.21(2), Fla. Stat. . . .
. . . ’s contention that the method used by the Board of Trustees to calculate a set-off violated section 440.21 . . . Section 440.21(2), Florida Statutes, states “[a]n agreement by an employee to waive her or his right . . .
. . . countenances such an arrangement; in fact, the CBA there was contrary to the provisions of section 440.21 . . .
. . . This distinguishing factor requires us to consider the effect of section 440.21(1), Florida Statutes . . . Lastly, and most importantly, section 440.21 was not implicated in Grice, and therefore, in that case . . . we could not have addressed the interplay between section 440.21(1) and section 440.20(15). . . . Section 440.21(1) prohibits an employee from contributing to his or her workers’ compensation benefits . . . Lombardi contends that section 440.21 is similar to 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1103(c)(1) (part of the Employee . . .
. . . In Lombardi, the JCC was instructed to consider section 440.21(1), Florida Statutes (1993), and the claimant . . . This court’s decision in Pickard did not address the issue raised in the amicus curiae brief. . 440.21 . . .
. . . Nevertheless, we are cognizant of section 440.21(1), Florida Statutes (1993), which prohibits “[a]ny . . . received, and to which claimant contributed, such reduction in compensation may be violative of section 440.21 . . . If, on the other hand, no such provision exists, then we direct the JCC to consider section 440.21(1) . . . See § 440.21(1), Fla. Stat. (1993). . . . contributions, decreasing workers’ compensation benefits on account of pension benefits runs afoul of section 440.21 . . .
. . . See also section 440.21(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), which prohibits "[a]ny agreement by an employee . . .
. . . benefits, constituted an improper agreement to waive her right to compensation contrary to section 440.21 . . . no agreement by an employee to waive his right to compensation under this chapter shall be valid.” § 440.21 . . . City of Fort Walton Beach, 691 So.2d 580, 581, n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), section 440.21 exists “to redress . . . Accordingly, we agree with the claimant that section 440.21(2) was violated in this case. Id. . . .
. . . Relevant to this issue is section 440.21, Florida Statutes which states: (1) Any agreement by an employee . . . , - So.2d -, 1999 WL 280805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), this court held that it was a violation of section 440.21 . . . City of Fort Walton Beach, 691 So.2d 580, 581, n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), section 440.21 exists “to redress . . .
. . . amount of intended loss to have been suffered by Medicare as a result of Garrison’s activity is $1,192[,]440.21 . . .
. . . City of Miami, 645 So.2d 252 (Fla.1989), this Court observed that section 440.21, Florida Statutes (1985 . . . KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. . 440.21 Invalid agreements . . .
. . . Claimant has not Invoked section 440.21, Florida Statutes (1991), which confers broad powers on judges . . .
. . . On the authority of section 440.21, Florida Statutes (1993), as construed in Barragan, Mr. . . . Champlovier the full benefits to which he is entitled under section 440.21, Florida Statutes (1993). . . . 440.15, Florida Statutes, while the claim that gave rise to the present appeal arises under section 440.21 . . . These parties manifested no intention to be bound for purposes of post^Barragan claims under section 440.21 . . .
. . . We begin our discussion by observing that Section 440.21, Florida Statutes, precludes any offset for . . . 1982), "[t]he rulings in Hoagey [Jewel Tea] and Brown effectively synthesize the interplay between § 440.21 . . .
. . . We rejected the ordinance as contravening section 440.21, Florida Statutes (1987), which prohibits the . . . Private employers were prohibited from taking offsets for workers' compensation benefits by section 440.21 . . .
. . . A judge of compensation claims has jurisdiction pursuant to section 440.21, Florida Statutes, to consider . . .
. . . Stat. ch. 440.21 precluded an employer from deducting workers’ compensation awards from pension benefits . . . Fla.Stat. ch. 440.21(2). Thus, the purported waiver by the debtor was not valid. . . . FiaStat. ch. 440.21 provides: (1) No agreement by an employee to pay any portion of premium paid by his . . .
. . . The supreme court cited Jewel Tea Co., in which the court held that section 440.21, Florida Statutes, . . . public importance: Whether an increase in workers’ compensation benefits, awarded pursuant to section 440.21 . . .
. . . The supreme court cited Jewel Tea Co., in which the court held that section 440.21, Florida Statutes, . . . public importance: Whether an increase in workers’ compensation benefits, awarded pursuant to section 440.21 . . .
. . . Tea, holds that the JCC has jurisdiction of claims to recover offsets taken in violation of section 440.21 . . .
. . . unilaterally extracted” the cost of the premium for worker’s compensation insurance in violation of section 440.21 . . . It is true that section 440.21(1), Florida Statutes (1983), specifically provides that any agreement . . . Therefore, we conclude that the section 440.21 prohibition does not apply to such agreements by an independent . . .
. . . While section 440.21(2) invalidates any agreement in which an employee waives his right to compensation . . .
. . . Its rejection of the City of Miami ordinance as contravening section 440.21, Florida Statutes (1987), . . .
. . . agreement by an employee to waive his rights to workers’ compensation otherwise invalid under section 440.21 . . .
. . . Court ruled that Miami’s city ordinance was preempted by the workers’ compensation law and that section 440.21 . . .
. . . not take into account the rationale underlying the Barra-gan decision, i.e., that pursuant to section 440.21 . . .
. . . a certified question, the supreme court ruled that a judge of compensation claims may apply section 440.21 . . . Chapter 440 has preempted local regulation on the subject of workers' compensation, and that section 440.21 . . .
. . . slightest; the claimants are not contributing to their workers’ compensation benefits contrary to section 440.21 . . . pension fund and not to benefits required under chapter 440, Florida Statutes, which is what section 440.21 . . . I cannot see how such a contractual agreement can be construed to be in violation of section 440.21. . . . The majority opinion inexplicably states that section 440.21 prohibits an employer from deducting workers . . . compliance with the required payments of chapter 440, not to reach outside this section of the statute. 440.21 . . . CONTRACTUAL PROVISION FOR OFFSET OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION, PERMIT THE DEPUTY’S APPLICATION OF SECTION 440.21 . . . Section 440.21, Florida Statutes (1987), an integral part of the workers’ compensation law, states: 440.21 . . . Under state law, section 440.21 prohibits an employer from deducting workers’ compensation benefits from . . .
. . . Florida Industrial Commission, 235 So.2d 289 (Fla.1970), or section 440.21, Florida Statutes (1985), . . . worker may be reduced due to the receipt of workers’ compensation benefits without violating section 440.21 . . . CONTRACTUAL PROVISION FOR OFFSET OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, PERMIT THE DEPUTY’S APPLICATION OF SECTION 440.21 . . .
. . . . § 440.21 invalidates any agreement by an employee to pay any portion of his workers’ compensation premium . . . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 440.21 provides in part: (1) No agreement by an employee to pay any portion of premium . . .
. . . CONTRACTUAL PROVISION FOR OFFSET OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION, PERMIT THE DEPUTY’S APPLICATION OF SECTION 440.21 . . .
. . . . § 440.21, Fla.Stat. (1983). . . .
. . . is an “agreement by an employee to waive his right to workers’ compensation”, invalid under Section 440.21 . . .
. . . of claimant’s rights to compensation under Chapter 440, Florida Statutes requires consideration of § 440.21 . . . Section 440.21 Florida Statutes (1985) provides: 440.21 Invalid agreements; penalty.— (1) No agreement . . .
. . . amounts of $3,482.83 against the Defendant as Factor for Carna Mills in Case No. 82-2340, and of $17,-440.21 . . .
. . . carrier is not entitled to a lien on his third-party recovery because of an alleged violation of Sec. 440.21 . . . judgment denied Mincey’s motion to strike and to deny claim of lien based upon a violation of section 440.21 . . . Section 440.21 states, in relevant part: (1) No agreement by an employee to pay any portion of premium . . .
. . . Presumably, this was a finding that the procedures used in this case did not violate Section 440.21, . . .
. . . The court reasoned that a contrary holding would violate § 440.21, Florida Statutes, which provides that . . . The rulings in Hoagey and Brown effectively synthesize the interplay between § 440.21 and § 440.20(15 . . .
. . . compensation liability for payments made under the group plan, such a result being contrary to Section 440.21 . . .
. . . . § 1 — 440.1; see also, § 1 — 440.21. . . .
. . . Under Sections 440.15 through 440.21 garnishment is not an independent action but is a proceeding ancillary . . .
. . . claimant involuntarily to waive his rights to the workmen’s compensation law in contravention of Section 440.21 . . .
. . . not require the employee to waive his right to compensation for permanent partial disability (Chapter 440.21 . . . Section 440.21(2), Florida Statutes. . . . agreements relied upon by the City totally ignore Sections 440.10(1), 440.11(1), 440.15(2) and (3), 440.21 . . .
. . . enrichment of a claimant, I believe that such a credit to the employer is not repugnant to Section 440.21 . . . Section 440.21, Florida Statutes, provides that: “No agreement by an employee to waive his right to compensation . . .
. . . reduction of workmen’s compensation benefits by an employer in direct violation of Florida Statute §440.21 . . .
. . . This is contrary to Florida Statute § 440.21, F.S.A., which provides in part as follows: “No agreement . . . Jewel Tea, the employer, contends that Florida Statute § 440.21, F.S.A. is not violated in this case . . . compensation under Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., requires consideration of Florida Statute § 440.21 . . .
. . . This sum was partly from wages and other sources and $440.21 of it was from headright income. . . .
. . . In addition to the foregoing, the claimant points to Section 440.21(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which . . .
. . . .$ 6,377.86 $ 440.21 November 11, 1954 through July 11, 1955 ............................ .. 6,416.71 . . .
. . . Section 440.21 (2) is not applicable in this case because it deals only with agreements made prior to . . .
. . . There can be no question that the petitioner’s investment of $38,-440.21 in the mortgaged property was . . .