A Florida appellate court rejected an as-applied constitutional challenge to the statutory cap on a worker’s eligibility for temporary benefits saying it didn't deprive injured workers of access to courts.

Ted Doss worked for United Parcel Service. He sprained his right knee while at work in November 1997, and UPS authorized treatment, including surgery.

Mr. Doss was off work from Sept. 10, 2016, through Jan. 3, 2017, and returned with no functional limitations. He was placed at maximum medical improvement on Feb. 7, 2017, with a 14% permanent impairment.

UPS paid no temporary disability benefits for the period he was unable to work post-surgery, and the parties stipulated that he received fewer than 260 weeks in temporary benefits during the entire course of this claim.

Mr. Doss filed a claim seeking temporary total disability benefits for the period he was unable to work following the surgery, but a judge of compensation ruled that his eligibility had expired.

The Court of Appeal for the 1st District of Florida said a worker’s substantive rights are established by the version of the law in effect on the date of injury. Under the version of Florida Statutes Section 440.15(3)(c) in effect when Mr. Doss was injured, his eligibility for temporary benefits terminated on the expiration of 401 weeks after the date of injury. The 401-week expiration date acted as a cap on the employee’s “bank” of weekly temporary compensation established by the maximum number of weeks otherwise payable under Section 440.15, the court said.

This statutory limitation on the payment of temporary benefits was abolished in 2003.

Under the 1997 version of Section 440.15, Mr. Doss would have been entitled to a maximum of 104 weeks in TTD benefits. However, in a 2016 case called Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg, the Florida Supreme Court held that the 104-week maximum, which represented a significant reduction from the prior law, unconstitutionally violated the right to access to the courts.

As a remedy, the Supreme Court revived a prior version of the statute, which provided for a 260-week limitation.

The JCC in Mr. Doss’ case used the 260-week limitation from the Supreme Court’s Westphal decision but still found his eligibility for TTD had expired.

Relying on Westphal, Mr. Doss argued that the 401-week limitation in Section 440.15(3)(c) was unconstitutional as applied to him, but the appeals court was not persuaded.

The court said, “the legislative reduction of benefits alone is not enough to show a denial of access to courts.”

The Florida Supreme Court in Martinez v. Scanlan rejected an argument that a change to the maximum temporary total disability benefit deprived workers of access to the courts. The high court in Martinez said that despite the reduction in benefits, “workers’ compensation law remains a reasonable alternative to tort litigation,” and access to courts was not affected by the benefit change.

Mr. Doss also did not face a situation where he received the maximum amount of TTD but did not yet qualify for permanent total disability benefits, which was the scenario in the Westphal case.

The court noted that Mr. Doss was off work for only four months after his surgery, without any loss of wages, and that he is able to pursue permanent benefits because he has reached maximum medical improvement.