Case Name: FLORIDA PLASTERING, et al., Petitioners, v. Dennis ALDERMAN, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-01-20
Citations: 755 So. 2d 604
Docket Number: No. SC94511
Parties: FLORIDA PLASTERING, et al., Petitioners, v. Dennis ALDERMAN, Respondent.
Judges: HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 755
Pages: 604–604

Head Matter:
FLORIDA PLASTERING, et al., Petitioners, v. Dennis ALDERMAN, Respondent.
No. SC94511.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jan. 20, 2000.
Anthony Reinert, Miami, Florida, for Petitioners.
Jacob D. Maldonado of Maldonado & Fernandez, P.A., Miami, Florida, for Respondent.

Opinion:
QUINCE, J.
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, 748 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 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(l)(e)(l), 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, 755 So.2d 597 (Fla.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.