Case Name: SPECIAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND, Petitioner, v. TROPICANA PRODUCTS, INC., Royal Globe Insurance Company, and Florida Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1978-03-02
Citations: 358 So. 2d 1
Docket Number: No. 48634
Parties: SPECIAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND, Petitioner, v. TROPICANA PRODUCTS, INC., Royal Globe Insurance Company, and Florida Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.
Judges: OVERTON, C. J., and BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 358
Pages: 1–4

Head Matter:
SPECIAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND, Petitioner, v. TROPICANA PRODUCTS, INC., Royal Globe Insurance Company, and Florida Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.
No. 48634.
Supreme Court of Florida.
March 2, 1978.
Rehearing Denied May 8, 1978.
Margaret M. Black, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
James H. Smith of Marlow, Mitzel, Ort-mayer & Shofi, Tampa, for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have for review by certiorari an order of the Industrial Relations Commission dismissing the petitioner's application for review of an order of a Judge of Industrial Claims. Jurisdiction vests in this Court, pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and Section 440.27(1), Florida Statutes (1975).
Grady Cutts severely injured his back in 1967. The injury and resulting infection left him permanently disabled. In 1972, Grady slipped off a truck at work and rein-jured his back. The two injuries left him permanently and totally disabled. A Judge of Industrial Claims ordered Grady's employer to provide permanent disability compensation. Later Grady, his employer, and the employer's insurance carrier petitioned the judge for an order approving and requiring a lump sum settlement.
In separate proceedings, pursuant to Section 440.49(4), Florida Statutes (1975), the employer and its carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Trust Fund (Fund) for the portion of benefits paid which was attributable to the pre-ex-isting physical impairment caused by the 1967 injury. The Fund moved for joinder in the settlement proceeding. A hearing was held and the motion was denied. The Industrial Relations Commission dismissed the Fund's appeal for review of the denial, and the Fund now petitions this Court for certiorari. The Fund claims the judge's rejection of its bid for joinder was a denial of its rights under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (1975), the Florida Administrative Procedures Act (APA), Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (1975), and the due process guarantees of the Florida and United States Constitutions.
The issue is whether the Special Disability Trust Fund is an "interested party" to a lump sum settlement authorized in Section 440.20(10), Florida Statutes (1975), and in Workmen's Compensation Rule 17(f). The plain meaning of the statute's words pro vides the answer. Since the money to be received by the injured claimant in settlement of his claim will in part be paid by the Fund, obviously the Fund is a party "interested" in the settlement to the same extent as others financially responsible, such as the employer and the carrier. See National Bank of Tampa v. Green, 175 So.2d 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); Goldberger v. Wolfie's Restaurant, IRC Order No. 2-2424 (10/8/73). There is no merit to respondent's suggestions (1) that the Fund is free to litigate the claimant's entitlement to the settlement benefits in a later, independent proceeding, and (2) that the settlement figure does not conclusively establish the Fund's liability. See Special Disability Trust Fund v. Fleet Transport Co., 283 So.2d 31 (Fla.1973). As the Fund demonstrates, Section 440.49(4)(g) has an extremely limited effect on this proceeding and does not bar Fund joinder.
We hold the Fund may have a right to intervene in workmen's compensation lump sum settlement proceedings when the employer or carrier is seeking Fund reimbursement for part of the payments at issue. This holding does not modify our decision in Special Disability Trust Fund v. Fleet Transport Co., supra, that the Fund is not a proper party to compensation proceedings. That issue is not present in this case. Since this issue is resolved under the Workmen's Compensation Act, we do not address or pass upon the Fund's APA and constitutional claims.
The Industrial Relations Commission departed from the essential requirements of the law. Its order is quashed, and this case is remanded for a determination of the merits of the Fund's application for review.
OVERTON, C. J., and BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
ADKINS, J., concurs specially with an opinion, with which HATCHETT, J., concurs.