CECIL W. PERRY, INC., AND GENERAL ACCIDENT GROUP, APPELLANTS,
v.
JUAN LOPEZ, 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 court reversed a deputy commissioner's order tolling the statute of limitations for a workers' compensation claim, holding that the claim must be filed with the Division in Tallahassee within two years of the injury, and that receipt by a local deputy commissioner does not satisfy the statutory filing requirement if the Division does not receive it timely.
The court held that the statute of limitations is not tolled merely by receipt of the claim by a local deputy commissioner. The claim must be filed with the Division at its office in Tallahassee within the statutory period, and the only exception to this requirement is when the deputy commissioner fails to timely forward a claim to the Division.
[1] A claim for workers' compensation benefits must be filed with the Division at its office in Tallahassee to toll the statute of limitations.
[2] Receipt of a workers' compensation claim by a deputy commissioner does not toll the statute of limitations if the claim is not subsequently received by the Division in Ta…
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“Section 440.19(l)(c) clearly mandates that the claim "shall be filed with the Division at its office in Tallahassee."”
Establishes the statutory requirement for proper filing location and the mandatory nature of the filing requirement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant suffered a compensable injury in August 1977, with the last remedial treatment on May 18, 1979. On May 15, 1981, the claim was received by th…
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 Tolling cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The employer/carrier appeals an order of the deputy commissioner finding that the receipt and acknowledgment of a claim with the deputy commissioner is sufficient to toll the two-year statute of limitations even though, through no fault of the deputy commissioner, the claim was not received by the Division in its office in Tallahassee until after expiration of the limitation period. We reverse for the reasons stated herein.
Claimant suffered a compensable injury in August of 1977. The last date of remedial treatment was May 18,1979. On May 15, 1981, a claim for benefits was received by the carrier and the local deputy commissioner, who timely forwarded same to the Division at Tallahassee. The claim was not received by the Division until May 19, 1981, one day after the limitation period.
Section 440.19(l)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1977), are to be read in para materia as establishing both the time limitation and place of filing for statute of limitation purposes. See Thompson v. Alonzo Cothron, Inc., 5 FCR 347 (May 6, 1965). Section 440.19(l)(c) clearly mandates that the claim “shall be filed with the Division at its office in Tallahassee.” The only statutory exception is that which permits the tolling of the statute of limitations where a claim was received by the deputy commissioner, who thereafter failed to timely forward same to the Division. Sections 440.19(l)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes (1977). The facts of this case do not fall within that exception. Nor does the fact that the carrier received notice that the claim was being filed prior to expiration of the limitation period excuse compliance with the statute on the basis that the employer/carrier was not prejudiced. As stated by Professor Larson in his treatise on Workers’ Compensation § 78.30:
Failure to file a claim for compensation within the statutory period cannot be excused by an argument that the employer was not harmed by the lateness of the filing. Like any statute of limitation, this one carries a conclusive presumption that a defendant is prejudiced by reason of the enhanced difficulty of preparing a defense, (emphasis added)
Accordingly, the order of the deputy commissioner is reversed with directions to dismiss the claim.
MILLS, BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.