ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND UNITED SELF INSURED SERVICES, APPELLANTS,
v.
SHIRLEY BEST, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Court of Appeal resolved whether a workers' compensation petition filed more than one year after remedial treatment ended was barred by the statute of limitations. The court held that the two-year statute of limitations in section 440.19(1) is the primary limitation, and section 440.19(2)'s tolling provision extends rather than shortens this period, making the employee's petition timely.
The petition was timely. Section 440.19(1) establishes a two-year statute of limitations from the date of injury, and section 440.19(2)'s tolling provision extends rather than shortens this period. A petition is timely if filed within two years of the accident or, even thereafter, if filed within one year of the last date the petitioner received medical treatment or indemnity benefits.
[1] A workers' compensation petition for benefits is timely if filed within two years of the date of the industrial accident.
[2] Payment of indemnity benefits or furnishing of remedial treatment tolls the workers' compensation statute of limitations for one year from the date of such payment or tre…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Section 440.19(2) has no practical effect until after the two-year period provided for in section 440.19(1) expires. As long as the petition is timely under either section 440.19(1) or section 440.19(2), the statute of limitations is no bar.”
Establishes that the two-year period in subsection (1) is primary and tolling in subsection (2) can only extend, not shorten, the limitations period.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 5, 1996, Shirley Best suffered an industrial accident at her workplace. The Orange County School Board and United Self Insured Services provi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse In Pari Materia Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
BENTON, J.
This case requires us to construe the workers’ compensation statute of limitations as it has existed since January 1, 1994. The question is whether the statute bars a petition for benefits filed within two years of an industrial accident where more than a year has elapsed since “the furnishing of remedial treatment.” § 440.19(2), Fla. Stat. (1995). In the order under review, the judge of compensation claims concluded that such a petition was timely. We affirm.
Orange County School Board (Board), Shirley Best’s employer, and United Self Insured Services (United), the Board’s servicing agent, appeal a non-final order certifying that “the determination of the exact nature and amount of benefits due [Ms. Best] will require substantial expense and time.” Under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.180(b)(1)(C), we have jurisdiction.
On March 5, 1996, Ms. Best suffered an industrial accident on account of which the Board and United provided remedial medical treatment. The treatment ended July 1, 1996. Ms. Best did not again request any workers’ compensation benefits until September 5, 1997, more than a year later. When she did, one of United’s claims representatives informed her that the statute of limitations had run and refused her request.
The petition for benefits with which the present proceedings began was then filed. Complying with section 440.19(4), Florida Statutes (1995), the Board and United raised the statute in their notice of denial.1 They contend that section 440.19(2), Florida Statutes (1995), limited the period in which Ms. Best could file a petition for benefits to the year following the date on which she last received remedial treatment.
The controversy turns on construction of the first two subsections of section 440.19, Florida Statutes (1995), which provide:
(1) Except to the extent provided elsewhere in this section, all employee petitions for benefits under this chapter shall be barred unless the employee, or the employee’s estate if the employee is deceased, has advised the employer of the injury or death pursuant to s. 440.185(1) and the petition is filed within 2 years after the date on which the employee knew or should have known that the injury or death arose out of work performed in the course and scope of employment.
(2) Payment of any indemnity benefit or the furnishing of remedial treatment, care, or attendance pursuant to either a notice of injury or a petition for benefits shall toll the limitations period set forth above for 1 year from the date of such payment. This tolling period does not apply to the issues of compensability, date of maximum medical improvement, or permanent impairment.
We conclude Ms. Best’s petition for benefits was timely under subsection (1) and that nothing in subsection (2) provides otherwise.
We read section 440.19(1), Florida Statutes (1995), as the statute of limitations generally applicable in workers’ compensation cases, subject to the exceptions — which extend the limitations period in certain circumstances— set out in the other subsections of section 440.19. As has been explained:
Although the courts as a general rule no longer read into statutes of limitation exceptions which are not embodied therein, the limitation laws themselves usually contain exceptions either generally or specially set forth. The most typical of such exceptions are those which postpone the running against persons under disability to sue, such as infants or incompetents,- or extend the time when such persons may bring suit after removal of the disability, or which stop the running of the statute as to causes of action against persons who are absent from or are nonresidents of the state, during the time of the absence.
51 Am.Jur.2d Limitation of Action § 142 (1970) (footnotes omitted). Subsections that follow subsection (2)2 can have no effect other than to extend the two-year statute of limitations set out in section 440.19(1), Flori da Statutes (1995). Subsection (2) should be construed in pari materia with these provisions.
Section 440.19(2) states: “Payment of any indemnity benefit or the furnishing of remedial treatment ... shall toll the limitations period set forth above for 1 year from the date of such payment.” (Emphasis added.) Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines “toll” to mean “[t]o suspend or stop temporarily as the statute of limitations is tolled during the defendant’s absence from the jurisdiction and during the plaintiff’s minority.” To interpret section 440.19(2) as reducing rather than expanding the limitations period ignores the meaning of the word “toll.” See Daniel v. Holmes Lumber Co., 490 So. 2d 1252, 1256 (Fla.1986) (“When the language of a statute is clear, courts may not look beyond the plain meaning of that language.”); Special Disability Trust Fund v. A-1 Block Corp., 688 So. 2d 968, 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (“Where the language is plain and unambiguous ... there is no occasion for judicial interpretation.”).
Section 440.19(2) has no practical effect until after the two-year period provided for in section 440.19(1) expires. As long as the petition is timely under either section 440.19(1) or section 440.19(2), the statute of limitations is no bar. Provision of medical treatment or indemnity benefits can extend the limitations period but cannot shorten it. A petition is timely if filed within two years of the date of accident or, even thereafter, if filed within one year of the last date the petitioner received medical treatment or indemnity benefits.
Affirmed.
VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR. . In part, subsection (4) requires that a statute of limitations defense be raised in the initial response to a petition for benefits:
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the failure to file a petition for benefits within the periods prescribed is not a bar to the employee's claim unless the carrier advances the defense of a statute of limitations in its initial response to the petition for benefits.
§ 440.19, Fla. Stat. (1995).
. Subsections (5) and (6) provide:
(5) If a person who is entitled to compensation under this chapter is mentally incompetent or a minor, the limitations period is tolled while that person has no guardian or other authorized representative, but the period shall begin to run from the date of appointment of such guardian or other representative, or in the case of a minor, if no guardian is appointed before the minor becomes of age, from the date the minor becomes of age.
(6)When recovery is denied to any person in a suit brought at law or in admiralty to recover damages for injury or death on the ground that such person was an employee, that the defendant was an employer within the meaning of this chapter, and that such employer had secured compensation of such employee under this chapter, the limitations period set forth in this section shall begin to run from the date of termination of such suit; however, in such an event, the employer is allowed a credit of his or her actual cost of defending such suit in an amount not to exceed $250, which amount must be deducted from any compensation allowed or awarded to the employee under this chapter. § 440.19, Fla. Stat. (1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Medpartners/Diagnostic Clinic Med. Grp., P.A. v. Zenith Ins. Co., 23 So. 3d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…st paid benefits pursuant to the 1999 notice of injury on August 11, 2000, which extended, for one year, the [*205] time within which Claimant could file a PFB or obtain benefits pursuant to that notice of injury. See Orange County Sch. Bd. v. Best, 728 So. 2d 1186, 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (explaining section 440.19(2) extends rather than shortens limitation period described in section 440.19(1), and if PFB is timely under section 440.19(1) or section 440.19(2) there is no bar to compensation). Because Claima…
-
Claims Mgmt., Inc. v. Philip, 746 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…ar limitation period. Because both petitions were filed within this period, claimant contends that the filing was timely. The claimant and E/C both cite as authority for their respective positions our decision in Orange County School Board v. Best, 728 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). This decision construed section 440.19, but the E/C in Best was urging the court to shorten the basic two-year limitation period. The claimant in Best filed a petition for benefits within two years of the date of injury but more…
-
Theocharis Varitimidis v. Walgreen Company/Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 58 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…ut of work performed in the course and scope of employment. Accordingly, because Claimant was injured on December 10, 2007, under no circumstance could the statute of limitations have run before December 11, 2009. See Orange County Sch. Bd. v. Best, 728 So. 2d 1186, 1188 (Fla, 1st DCA 1999) (explaining section 440.19(2) extends rather than shortens limitation period described in section 440.19(1), and if petition for benefits is timely under section 440.19(1) or section 440.19(2) there is no bar to compensatio…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Higdon v. State, 490 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 1986)
- Jewson v. State, 688 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Special Disability Tr. Fund v. A-1 Block Corp. & Feisco, 688 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)