THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE AND GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
MENISIER ST. LOUIS, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed a Judge of Compensation Claims' order finding that an employee's petition for benefits was not barred by the statute of limitations under Florida law, because the employer failed to inform the employee of his rights and the applicable limitations period.
The court affirmed that the claimant's petition was not barred by the statute of limitations because competent substantial evidence supported the JCC's findings that the claimant was never advised of his rights and the limitations period, and his ignorance of these requirements accounted for his failure to seek benefits timely.
[1] A statute of limitations in workers' compensation may be tolled when the claimant is unaware of their rights, benefits, and procedures, including the limitations period,…
[2] An employer or servicing agent has a duty to inform a claimant of their rights, benefits, and procedures under the Florida Workers' Compensation Law, including the limita…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the claimant was never advised by the employer/servicing agent of the rights, benefits and procedures, including the limitations period, under the Florida Workers' Compensation Law; that the claimant was unaware of such rights, benefits and procedures, and specifically unaware of the limitations period; and that this ignorance accounted for his failure to obtain care within the limitations period”
Establishes the factual basis for excusing the statute of limitations requirement
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMenisier St. Louis sustained a compensable workplace injury while employed by the City of Fort Lauderdale. The employer/servicing agent never advised …
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 Workers' Compensation Statute Of Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation appeal, The City of Fort Lauderdale and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. (jointly the employer/servicing agent), appeal an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding that the petition for benefits filed by Menisier St. Louis, claimant and appellant, was not barred by the statute of limitations. See § 440.19, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994). In the order on appeal the JCC found, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, that the claimant’s injuries were sustained in a compensable workplace accident and that claimant was entitled to receive causally related benefits; and further expressly certified that the determination of the exact nature and amount of benefits due to the claimant will require substantial expense and time.
Thus, we have jurisdiction pursuant to rule 9.180(b)(1)(C), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The record contains competent substantial evidence supporting the findings of the JCC that the claimant was never advised by the employer/servicing agent of the rights, benefits and procedures, including the limitations period, under the Florida Workers’ Compensation Law; that the claimant was unaware of such rights, benefits and procedures, and specifically unaware of the limitations period; and that this ignorance accounted for his failure to obtain care within the limitations period. See § 440.19(4), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994); Fontanills v. Hillsborough County School Bd., 913 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA, 2005); Crutcher v. School Bd. of Broward County, 834 So. 2d 228, 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Tallahassee Mem’l Healthcare, Inc. v. Coleman, 743 So. 2d 1200, 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
Accordingly, we affirm the JCC’s order. ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jacksonville Sheriff's Office/City of Jacksonville Risk Mgmt. v. Smith, 66 So. 3d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…y v. AMS Staff Leasing, 993 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Sun Sentinel & Tribune Co. v. Petrovich, 744 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Cadco Builders, Inc. v. Roberts, 712 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Cf. City of Fort Lauderdale v. St. Louis, 917 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). WOLF, THOMAS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Crutcher v. Sch. Bd. OF Broward Cnty. & Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc., 834 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Davis v. Heye, 743 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Fontanills v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sch. Bd., 913 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- State v. Taylor, 743 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)