JOHN THOMAS WOODBURY, PETITIONER,

v.

THE HONORABLE PATTI ENGLANDER HENNING, ETC., RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Solar Pane Insulating Glass, Inc. v. Hanssen, 727 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
  …have actual knowledge that the claimant” continues to use the medical appliance, if the running of the two-year limitations period is to be tolled. Lee v. City of Jacksonville, 616 So. 2d 37, 38 (Fla.1993), citing Taylor v. Metropolitan Dade County, 596 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). See also Fuster v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 545 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (holding employer’s knowledge that a pilot continued to wear a back brace while flying was sufficient to toll the statute of limitations). Nobody at…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• LEE v. City OF Jacksonville & CNA Ins. Co., 616 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1993)
  …and thus did so with the acquiescence of his doctor. In order for treatment to be “furnished by the employer,” the employer or carrier must have actual knowledge that the claimant is receiving remedial treatment. Taylor v. Metropolitan Dade County, 596 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); see also Devilling v. Rimes, Inc., 591 So. 2d [*39] 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (claimant’s use of prescribed shoe inserts and cane did not toll the limitations period where there was no showing that employer had actual knowledge of…
• Gore v. LEE Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Johns E. Co., Inc., 43 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
  …k brace was a “medical apparatus” prescribed to alleviate pain, the court held the back brace constituted “remedial treatment” because it mitigated the condition or effects of the claimant’s injury. Id. at 274; see also Taylor v. Metro. Dade County, 596 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (reversing and remanding for findings of fact where JCC found statute of limitations barred claimant’s claim, but did not address claimant’s testimony that back brace had been prescribed and that claimant wore back brace off and…