Bradley Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg; City of St. Petersburg v. Bradley Westphal

Summary

The Florida Supreme Court held that the 104-week limit on temporary total disability benefits under section 440.15(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), was unconstitutional as applied to workers who remained totally disabled but had not reached maximum medical improvement. The Court rejected the First District Court of Appeal's saving construction of the statute, quashed its decision, and revived the prior statutory provision allowing up to 260 weeks of temporary total disability benefits. The Court concluded that the statutory gap in benefits violated the Florida Constitution's access-to-courts provision.

Holdings

1. Section 440.15(2)(a) is plainly written and does not deem a worker to have reached maximum medical improvement merely because the 104-week period for temporary total disability benefits has expired. The statute requires permanent impairment to be determined, not that permanent total disability benefits automatically become available.
2. Section 440.15(2)(a) is unconstitutional as applied to a severely injured worker who remains totally disabled and incapable of working after 104 weeks but has not reached maximum medical improvement, because the resulting gap in disability benefits denies the worker a reasonable alternative to tort litigation and violates article I, section 21, of the Florida Constitution.
3. The proper remedy is statutory revival of the pre-1994 version of section 440.15(2)(a), which allowed temporary total disability benefits for up to 260 weeks.

Questions Presented

1. Whether section 440.15(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), permits a totally disabled worker who has not reached maximum medical improvement when 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits expire to be deemed at maximum medical improvement and claim permanent total disability benefits.
2. Whether the 104-week limitation on temporary total disability benefits is unconstitutional as applied to a worker who remains totally disabled and incapable of working but has not reached maximum medical improvement.
3. What remedy is appropriate for the unconstitutional application of the 104-week limitation.

Disposition

quashed