Barragan v. City of Miami
545 So. 2d 252 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal ordinance that allows an employer to reduce an employee's pension benefits by the amount of workers' compensation benefits received is invalid because the field of workers' compensation is preempted by state law, which prohibits such offsets.
Facts:
- Paul Barragan and Andrew Giordano were police officers employed by the City of Miami.
- Both officers suffered permanent, work-related injuries during their employment.
- As a result of their injuries, both Barragan and Giordano were granted workers' compensation benefits.
- Both officers were also granted separate disability pension benefits by the City of Miami.
- The City of Miami had a municipal ordinance that provided for the offset of pension benefits by the amount of workers' compensation benefits paid.
- Pursuant to this ordinance, the City of Miami reduced the disability pension payments made to both Barragan and Giordano by the amount of their workers' compensation benefits.
Procedural Posture:
- In Barragan's case, a deputy commissioner awarded him combined benefits up to his average monthly wage, and the City of Miami appealed to the First District Court of Appeal.
- The First District Court of Appeal reversed the deputy commissioner's award in Barragan's case.
- In Giordano's case, a deputy commissioner ultimately denied his claim for increased workers' compensation to offset the city's pension reduction, and Giordano appealed to the First District Court of Appeal.
- The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of Giordano's claim.
- In both cases, the First District Court of Appeal certified the same question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida, which consolidated the cases for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city ordinance that allows an employer to reduce an employee's disability pension benefits by the amount of workers' compensation benefits received violate Florida's workers' compensation statute, section 440.21?
Opinions:
Majority - Grimes, J.
Yes, the ordinance violates state law. Florida's workers' compensation law, Chapter 440, comprehensively regulates the subject and preempts any conflicting municipal ordinances. Section 440.21 prohibits any agreement by an employee to contribute to a benefit fund maintained by an employer for the purpose of providing workers' compensation. Reducing pension benefits by the amount of workers' compensation paid is the functional equivalent of an illegal employee contribution. The city ordinance directly contravenes state law and is therefore invalid under the municipal home rule powers act, which prevents cities from legislating on subjects expressly preempted by state general law.
Concurring in result only - Ehrlich, C.J.
Yes. The city ordinance is the functional equivalent of a former state statute, section 440.09(4), which was repealed by the legislature in 1973. The City should not be permitted to accomplish indirectly through an ordinance what it can no longer do directly under state law. Furthermore, under the precedent of Jewel Tea Co., a claimant is entitled to workers' compensation benefits in addition to any benefits from a plan to which they contributed.
Dissenting - McDonald, J.
No. The ordinance should be upheld because it does not reduce the workers' compensation benefits mandated by statute; it merely dictates the calculation of separate, contract-based disability pension benefits. The City and its employees, through their union, bargained for a pension plan where benefits would be reduced if workers' compensation was paid for the same disability. This contractual agreement does not violate section 440.21, as employee contributions are to the pension fund, not to the workers' compensation fund. The majority's decision improperly negates an arms-length contract and legislates from the bench.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the doctrine of state preemption in the area of workers' compensation in Florida. It establishes that municipalities cannot use their home rule authority to enact ordinances that diminish the rights and benefits guaranteed to employees under the state's comprehensive statutory scheme. The ruling invalidates contractual or ordinance-based offsets of pension benefits against workers' compensation, thereby ensuring public employees receive the same protections as private employees. This precedent limits the ability of public employers to coordinate benefits in a way that reduces their total payout to injured workers.
