DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

July Term 2014

YEINSON TORRES HURTADO and VIVIANA HURTADO ESCOBAR,

Appellants,

v.

NIGEL DESOUZA,

Appellee.

Nos. 4D12-1817 and 4D13-1469

[November 26, 2014]

Consolidated appeals and cross-appeal from the Circuit Court for the 

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Howard Harrison, Senior 

Judge and Edward Fine, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502010CA016866.

Scott A. Cole and Anne C. Sullivan of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., 

Miami, for appellants.

Andrew J. Rader of Cutler Rader, P.L., Deerfield Beach, and Bard D. 

Rockenbach and Adam J. Richardson of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., 

West Palm Beach, for appellee.

MAY, J.

The defendants appeal an adverse judgment arising from a minor rearend auto accident. The plaintiff separately appealed the same judgment. 

We consolidated the cases and treated the plaintiff’s appeal as a crossappeal. Multiple issues were raised in the direct appeal. We affirm on all 

issues, but write to address the collateral source/set-off issue concerning 

unemployment benefits raised in the cross-appeal. We reverse on that 

issue.

The plaintiff filed a claim for personal injury and damages sustained 

when the defendants rear-ended his car while stopped at a traffic light. 

The defendants filed an answer denying all allegations and asserting 

affirmative defenses, including a set-off for government benefits. Just 

prior to trial, the defendants admitted liability, but causation and damages 

remained for the jury to determine.
2

The plaintiff was a commercial pilot but he was laid off and receiving 

unemployment compensation at the time of the accident. The plaintiff 

testified that he earned $12,000 in unemployment compensation in 2009 

and $15,000 in 2010. He testified that he did not work as a pilot for the 

two years following the accident.

The jury found the defendants’ negligence was the legal cause of the 

plaintiff’s injuries, and awarded $1,002,238.17 in damages. Among the 

itemized damages was $325,000 in past lost wages. 

The defendants moved for a new trial and post-trial set-offs of the 

unemployment compensation and PIP benefits received by the plaintiff. 

The court granted the motion for post-trial set-offs and set off $27,000 of 

unemployment compensation and $10,000 of PIP benefits received by the 

plaintiff. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration, which the court denied. 

The parties appealed.

On cross-appeal, the plaintiff argues that the collateral source statute 

does not allow for a set-off of unemployment compensation benefits.

1 The 

defendants respond that unemployment benefits fall within the purview of 

the collateral source statute. The issue is whether unemployment 

compensation is a collateral source subject to a set-off under section 

768.76, Florida Statutes. 

We have de novo review. GTC, Inc. v. Edgar, 967 So. 2d 781, 785 (Fla. 

2007).

Common law prohibited a set-off of collateral source benefits. Sheffield 

v. Superior Ins. Co., 800 So. 2d 197, 200 n.3 (Fla. 2001). “Section 768.76 

abrogated the common law collateral source rule and replaced it with a 

statutory provision that allows certain payments from collateral sources 

to be set off from a plaintiff’s recovery.” Coop. Leasing, Inc. v. Johnson, 872 

So. 2d 956, 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citing § 768.76, Fla. Stat. (1997)). 

1 Unemployment compensation has been renamed “reemployment assistance.” § 

443.036(38), Fla. Stat. (2012). “Reemployment assistance” is defined as, “[C]ash 

benefits payable to individuals with respect to their unemployment pursuant to 

the provisions of this chapter. . . . Any reference to reemployment assistance 

shall mean compensation payable from an unemployment fund as defined in 26 

U.S.C. s. 3306(f).” Id. Under section 443.091’s “benefit eligibility conditions,” the 

person seeking reemployment assistance must be “able to work and is available 

for work.” § 443.091(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (2012). “Able to work” is defined as 

“physically and mentally capable of performing the duties of the occupation in 

which work is being sought.” § 443.036(1), Fla. Stat. (2012).
3

The collateral source statute provides: 

(1) In any action . . . in which liability is admitted or is 

determined by the trier of fact and in which damages are 

awarded to compensate the claimant for losses sustained, the 

court shall reduce the amount of such award by the total of 

all amounts which have been paid for the benefit of the 

claimant, or which are otherwise available to the claimant, 

from all collateral sources; however, there shall be no 

reduction for collateral sources for which a subrogation or 

reimbursement right exists. Such reduction shall be offset to 

the extent of any amount which has been paid, contributed, 

or forfeited by, or on behalf of, the claimant or members of the 

claimant’s immediate family to secure her or his right to any 

collateral source benefit which the claimant is receiving as a 

result of her or his injury.

(2) For purposes of this section:

(a) “Collateral sources” means any payments made to the 

claimant, or made on the claimant’s behalf, by or pursuant to:

1. The United States Social Security Act, except Title XVIII 

and Title XIX; any federal, state, or local income disability act; 

or any other public programs providing medical expenses, 

disability payments, or other similar benefits, except those 

prohibited by federal law and those expressly excluded by law 

as collateral sources.

2. Any health, sickness, or income disability insurance; 

automobile accident insurance that provides health benefits 

or income disability coverage; and any other similar insurance 

benefits, except life insurance benefits available to the 

claimant, whether purchased by her or him or provided by 

others.

3. Any contract or agreement of any group, organization, 

partnership, or corporation to provide, pay for, or reimburse 

the costs of hospital, medical, dental, or other health care 

services.
4

4. Any contractual or voluntary wage continuation plan 

provided by employers or by any other system intended to 

provide wages during a period of disability.

. . . .

§ 768.76(1)–(2), Fla. Stat. (2012). Both parties focus on section 

768.76(2)(a)1. in support of their respective positions. However, neither

that subsection nor the remaining subsections provide for a set-off of 

unemployment compensation benefits. 

“The plain meaning of the statute is always the starting point in

statutory interpretation.” Edgar, 967 So. 2d at 785. “When the language 

of the statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite 

meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory 

interpretation and construction; the statute must be given its plain and 

obvious meaning.” Id. (quoting Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217, 219 (Fla. 

1984)).

Using the plain meaning of the statute, unemployment benefits do not 

fall within sections 768.76(2)(a)1.–4. Under section (2)(a)1., 

unemployment compensation is not provided pursuant to “[t]he United 

States Social Security Act, except Title XVIII and Title XIX.” §

768.76(2)(a)1., Fla. Stat. It is also not provided for under “any federal, 

state, or local income disability act.” Id. The plain reading of “income 

disability act” means an act that provides income assistance for persons 

with a disability. A person cannot qualify for unemployment compensation 

unless he or she is physically able to work; unemployment compensation 

cannot fit within the term “income disability act.” §§ 443.091(1)(d),

.036(1), Fla. Stat.

Subsection 2. refers to “health, sickness, or income disability 

insurance; automobile accident insurance that provides health benefits or 

income disability coverage; and any other similar insurance benefits.” §

768.76(2)(a)2., Fla. Stat. Like subsection one, this section relates to 

insurance that provides benefits for health, sickness and disability, which 

are all types of insurance suggesting the person is unable to work. As 

previously mentioned, unemployment compensation is available only to 

persons who are physically able to work. This section therefore cannot

cover unemployment compensation benefits.

Subsection 3. refers to a “contract or agreement of any group, 

organization, partnership, or corporation to provide, pay for, or reimburse 

the costs of hospital, medical, dental, or other health care services.” § 

768.76(2)(a)3., Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). For the same reason 
5

expressed above, unemployment compensation does not fall within its 

purview.

And last, unemployment compensation is not a “contractual or 

voluntary wage continuation plan provided by employers or by any other 

system intended to provide wages during a period of disability.” § 

768.76(2)(a)4., Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Although Florida does not

define “wage continuation plan,” the Code of Federal Regulations does. 

The provision entitled “amounts expended for medical care,” states in

part, “[I]f under a wage continuation plan the taxpayer is entitled to regular 

wages during a period of absence from work due to sickness or injury.” 26 

C.F.R. § 1.105-2 (2012). This section cites to section 1.105-4, which has 

been removed from the Code of Federal Regulations. That section

previously defined “wage continuation plan” as, “[A]n accident or health 

plan . . . under which wages, or payments in lieu of wages, are paid to an 

employee for a period during which he is absent from work on account of 

a personal injury or sickness.” 

Unemployment compensation would not fall under this section as it 

does not involve sickness or injury. See § 443.091(1)(d), Fla. Stat. In fact, 

the person seeking unemployment compensation must be physically able 

to work. See § 443.036(1), Fla. Stat.

The purpose of section 768.76 is “[t]o prevent double recovery by the 

claimant.” Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Castellano, 764 So. 2d 889, 891 

(Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (citing § 768.76, Fla. Stat. (1997)). But, because

unemployment compensation benefits are not specifically listed in section 

786.76 and cannot be interpreted as a collateral source under any of its 

provisions, the trial court erred in setting off those benefits from the final 

judgment. We therefore reverse and remand the case to the trial court to 

eliminate the set-off for these benefits.

Reversed and Remanded.

WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.