Case Name: Ernie Haire FORD, et al., Petitioners, v. Sherry CONKLIN, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-02-22
Citations: 781 So. 2d 1070
Docket Number: No. SC96152
Parties: Ernie Haire FORD, et al., Petitioners, v. Sherry CONKLIN, Respondent.
Judges: WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 781
Pages: 1070–1070

Head Matter:
Ernie Haire FORD, et al., Petitioners, v. Sherry CONKLIN, Respondent.
No. SC96152.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Feb. 22, 2001.
Nancy A. Lauten of Fowler, White, Gil-len, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Petitioners.
Vicki L. Stolberg of Barrs, Williamson, Stolberg, Townsend & Gonzalez, P.A., Tampa, FL, 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 Conklin v. Ford, 737 So.2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999):
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.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur.