Case Name: HRS DISTRICT II and Alexsis Claims Management, Cross-Appellees, v. Ann L. PICKARD, Appellee/Cross-Appellant
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-07-19
Citations: 778 So. 2d 299
Docket Number: No. 98-1097
Parties: HRS DISTRICT II and Alexsis Claims Management, Cross-Appellees, v. Ann L. PICKARD, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Judges: WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 778
Pages: 299–302

Head Matter:
HRS DISTRICT II and Alexsis Claims Management, Cross-Appellees, v. Ann L. PICKARD, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
No. 98-1097.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
July 19, 1999.
Opinion Denying Rehearing Oct. 15, 1999.
David A. McCranie of McCranie & Lower, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
R. Jeremy Solomon of Solomon & Proctor, Tallahassee, for Appellee/Cross-Ap-pellant.
Barbara E. Schnepper, P.A., Miami, Amicus Curiae, Florida Workers’ Advocates.
Emily Moore, Tallahassee, Amicus Curiae, Florida Division of Retirement.

Opinion:
ERVIN, J.
This is an appeal challenging the application of the 100 percent average weekly wage (AWW) cap and resulting offset arising under section 440.20(15), Florida Statutes (Supp.1986), and Escambia County Sheriffs Department v. Grice, 692 So.2d 896 (Fla.1997). The employer and its insurance carrier, HRS District II and Aex-sis Risk Management (E/C), argue on appeal that the judge of compensation claims (JCC) erred by excluding the claimant's permanent total disability (PTD) supplemental benefits and cost-of-living adjustments from the 100 percent AWW cap. We agree with the E/C to the limited extent that the JCC failed to include supplemental benefits in the initial calculation, as provided in the formula set forth in Hunt v. Stratton, 677 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), but otherwise affirm the JCC's ruling. Claimant, Ann L. Pickard, raises three issues on cross-appeal. We affirm the first two without further comment, but reverse and remand as to the third issue regarding the retroactive application of the 100 percent AWW cap and offset applied.
Turning first to the E/C's issue on appeal, the JCC found, using the figures in effect in 1989, that when claimant became entitled to PTD benefits, her weekly social security disability benefit was $128.95, that her weekly state disability retirement benefit was $128.37, and that her AWW was $816.47. In determining the 100 percent AWW cap and resultant offset available to the E/C under section 440.20(15) and Grice, the JCC subtracted the total sum of claimant's weekly social security disability and state disability retirement benefits ($252.32) from her $316.47 AWW, which yielded a difference of $64.15. The JCC then directed the E/C to pay the claimant the sum of $64.15 per week for PTD benefits, plus interest and penalties, from August 1, 1989, when claimant first became entitled to same, through September 25, 1996, when the E/C commenced paying PTD benefits.
The correct formula for determining an initial social security disability offset is set forth in Hunt v. Stratton, 677 So.2d 64, 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). When calculating the offset, a claimant's initial compensation rate and PTD supplemental benefits should be considered. Because the JCC's offset calculation fails to include the amount of PTD supplemental benefits to which claimant was first entitled in 1989 under section 440.15(l)(e)l, Florida Statutes (Supp.1986), we reverse the order only to such extent and remand with directions to recalculate the offset by including the 1989 supplemental benefit in the calculation.
We reject, however, the E/C's argument that the offset should be recalculated thereafter on an annual basis. This court has repeatedly held that offsets should not be recalculated based on annual increases in PTD supplemental benefits and cost-of-living adjustments. See Acker v. City of Clearwater, 755 So.2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), review granted, 727 So.2d 903 (Fla. Feb.8, 1999); Hahn v. City of Clearwater, 755 So.2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), review granted, 727 So.2d 903 (Fla. Feb.8, 1999); Rowe v. City of Clearwater, 755 So.2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), review granted, 727 So.2d 903 (Fla. Feb.8, 1999); Department of Labor & Employment Sec. v. Boise Cascade Corp., 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2124, — So.2d -, 1998 WL 597860 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept.11, 1998), review granted, 727 So.2d 904 (Fla. Feb.3, 1999); Department of Transp. v. Johns, 753 So.2d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), review granted, 727 So.2d 904 (Fla. Feb.3, 1999); Aiderman v. Florida Plastering, 748 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), review granted, No. 94,511, 732 So.2d 326 (Fla. May 5, 1999); Americana Dutch Hotel v. McWilliams, 733 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), review pending, No. 95,229 (Fla. Apr. 1, 1999) (pet. for rev. filed). In accordance with the above cases, we certify the same question certified in Acker.
Turning next to the cross-appeal, we reverse the order to the extent it allows the 100 percent AWW cap and resultant offset arising under section 440.20(15) and Grice to be applied to benefits owed since August 1, 1989. The E/C specifically claims overpayments based on Grice, an argument suggesting that Grice interpreted section 440.20(15) in a manner contrary to existing law. Because the effect of this new application is to reduce claimant's benefits, we decline to apply it retroactively to August 1, 1989. Compare City of Miami v. Bell, 634 So.2d 163 (Fla.1994) (refusing to apply ruling in Barragan v. City of Miami, 545 So.2d 252 (Fla.1989), retroactively to require City of Miami to repay offsets that were improperly taken from the claimants' pensions).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further consistent proceedings.
WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.