SPECIAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND, APPELLANT,
v.
MIAMI AIRPORT HILTON/HILTON HOTELS CORP., APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 2011-02-22
No. 1D10-4406
BENTON, C.J., PADOVANO and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
54 So. 3d 628 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2011)

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.

Synopsis

The Special Disability Trust Fund appealed a workers' compensation judge's decision ordering reimbursement of an employer/carrier's 2001 reimbursement request. The appellate court reversed, holding that the statute of limitations had expired on the employer/carrier's right to contest the Fund's failure to act on the request, as four years had passed since the reimbursement request was submitted in August 2001.


Holding

The court held that the statute of limitations barred reimbursement because the employer/carrier's right to contest the Fund's failure to act on the 2001 reimbursement request expired four years after the request was submitted in August 2001, in accordance with section 95.031, Florida Statutes, and the employer/carrier's application for hearing filed in 2008 was untimely.


Headnotes

[1] A statute of limitations for contesting a denied reimbursement request in a workers' compensation case begins to run when the employer/carrier is on notice that reimburse…

[2] A cause of action against the Special Disability Trust Fund for failure to act on a reimbursement request accrues when no reimbursement is received within one year of the…

Previewing 2 of 4 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

Key Quotes

“When no reimbursement was received within one year, the E/C's cause of action against the Fund accrued.”

Establishes that the statute of limitations began running one year after submission of the reimbursement request

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The employer/carrier timely filed a notice of claim in the reimbursement process. The Fund notified the employer/carrier that the claim was appropriat…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, the Special Disability Trust Fund (Fund) challenges the judge of compensation claims’ (JCC’s) finding that reimbursement of the employer/carrier’s (E/C’s) 2001 reimbursement request was not barred by the statute of limitations. We agree the JCC misapplied prior case law and thus reverse the awarded reimbursement.

The facts are not in dispute. The E/C timely filed a notice of claim, the first step in the reimbursement process. See § 440.49(2)(g), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1990). The Fund notified the E/C that the claim was appropriate for reimbursement in December 1996, and amended its offer of reimbursement in January 1997 to include the settlement of the claim.

The Fund received the E/C’s reimbursement request, the second step in the reimbursement process on August 3, 2001. The E/C did not thereafter submit anything further to the Fund, nor did it receive any communication from the Fund until May 2008 when the Fund notified the E/C that the statute of limitations had expired on its 2001 claim for reimbursement.

In rejecting the Fund’s contention that the statute of limitations barred reimbursement on the 2001 submission, the JCC erroneously equated the two steps required for reimbursement and relied on Special Disability Trust Fund v. Rescare Home Health, Inc., 930 So.2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). In Rescare, the notice of claim was timely filed but the Fund never accepted the claim as reimbursable. Id. at 748. Because a request for reimbursement could not be submitted until the Fund determined the E/C was entitled to reimbursement, the statute of limitations did not begin to run on the E/C’s time to file the reimbursement request. Id. This court “declined, as did the JCC, to adopt additional statutes of limitations for the first step in the reimbursement process.” Id.

Here, it is undisputed that the Fund accepted the claim as reimbursable, thus step one was complete. The E/C thereafter began its compliance with step two of the reimbursement process by submitting its reimbursement request in August 2001. When no reimbursement was received within one year, the E/C’s cause of action against the Fund accrued. See Associated Coca Cola v. Special Disability Trust Fund, 508 So.2d 1305, 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (holding E/C on notice at end of statutory “intervalfs] that reimbursement request for that interval have either been accepted or rejected”). Because the E/C’s contest of a denied reimbursement request is based on a statutory liability, section 95.031, Florida Statutes, provides that such an action must be instituted within four years. Id. at 1306. Based on the holding in Associated Coca Cola, the E/C’s right to contest the failure of the Fund to act on the 2001 reimbursement request expired in 2006, long before the E/C filed its 2008 application for hearing.

Accordingly, the order requiring the Fund to reimburse the E/C for the 2001 reimbursement request is REVERSED.

BENTON, C.J., PADOVANO and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw