Cases

Section 440.20(12), Florida Statutes, provides that when compensation payable under a workers’ compensation "award" is not paid within seven days after it becomes due, there shall be added to such unpaid compensation a penalty in an amount equal to 20 percent thereof. In regards to unrepresented claimants who settle their workers’ compensation cases but the settlement amount is not paid timely, an additional 20 percent penalty is added to the settlement value in accordance with Section 440.20(7), Florida Statutes. However, if the claimant is represented by an attorney and there is a late payment of an agreed upon settlement amount, penalties are not payable pursuant to Section 440.20(7), Florida Statutes.

 

When testing the constitutionality of a statutory provision in regards to disparate treatment among classes (in this instance between represented and unrepresented claimants) and assuming that such disparate treatment does not negatively impact a suspect class or result in the deprivation of a fundamental right, the basis of review is whether there is a rational basis for such treatment. Under this minimal level of scrutiny, the party attacking the constitutionality of the statutory provision bears the burden of demonstrating that the statutory distinction at issue has no rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. The party defending the constitutionality of the statutory provision has no obligation to prove that the legislature’s assumptions about the benefits of the statutory distinction at issue would be realized nor does such evidence have to be present in the record for the legislation to survive the challenge. Even if it appears that the legislature has made an improvident, ill-advised, or unnecessary decision, the law must be upheld if there are any facts that may reasonably be conceived to justify it. A determination of whether a rational basis exists is not subject to courtroom fact-finding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data. In this case, the court found a rational basis upon which to distinguish disparate treatment of represented and unrepresented claimants.