MICHAEL MAHONEY, APPELLANT,
v.
SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY AND CRAWFORD & COMPANY, APPELLEES
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 held that a deputy commissioner lacks the authority to prospectively abrogate a statute of limitations to preserve future medical benefits.
A claimant suffered significant vision loss in an industrial accident and requires future medical care. However, the probable need for this care exten…
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 Chapter 440, Florida Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
BOOTH, Judge.
Claimant appeals an order of the deputy commissioner denying his request for'future remedial medical care for his eyes. Testimony establishes that medical care will be required due to the industrial accident, but at a time in the future probably beyond the two-year statute of limitations of Section 440.19(2)(b), Florida Statutes. Claimant, an 18-year-old, suffered 80 percent loss of vision in his left eye, the equivalent of loss of the eye under Chapter 440, for which he was limited by the statute then in effect to an award of $1,200 permanent total disability benefits.1
The deputy commissioner ruled that he was without authority to abrogate the statute of limitations prospectively, so as to preserve claimant’s rights to medical benefits anticipated to arise beyond the two-year statutory period. We reluctantly agree and affirm the order appealed. Western Liquors Corporation v. Studer, 391 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Goodyear Service Store v. Rockey, 382 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Luv Auto Sales, Inc. v. Murphy, IRC Order 2-3567, cert. dismissed, 373 So. 2d 459 (Fla.1979). It is unfortunate that, although probable need for future medical care to alleviate the effects of claimant’s industrial accident has been established, claimant must go through the form of receiving remedial care every two years in order to preserve the right to future benefits. It is contrary to the basic principles of Chapter 440 to exalt form over substance, particularly where the result is to deprive the worker of needed medical care. However, as recognized by the deputy, it is not the province of the deputy or of this Court, but of the Legislature, to supply appropriate remedy for claimants such as this.
Accordingly, the order below is AFFIRMED.
MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur. . Mahoney v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 419 So. 2d 754, 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Orlando & Gallagher Bassett Ins. Co. v. Blackburn, 519 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…oyer against old claims that can no longer be successfully investigated and defended and to encourage prompt and nonadversarial payment of benefits. Our ruling in this case does not conflict with the decision in Mahoney v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 438 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), rev. denied, 447 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1984), in which this Court recognized that a claimant “must go through the form of receiving remedial care every two years in order to preserve the right to future benefits.” Nothing in that decl…
-
Solar Pane Insulating Glass, Inc. v. Hanssen, 727 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…. Under the statute of limitations in effect at the time of the injury, a claim for additional medical benefits is untimely, unless filed within two years of the date the employee was last furnished medical care. See Mahoney v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 438 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In the case of a medical appliance “the employer or carrier must 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…1 / 2
-
LEE v. City OF Jacksonville & CNA Ins. Co., 616 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1993)…and had no further contact with his employer or his physician regarding the use of the TENS unit. In order to preserve the right to future benefits, the claimant is required to receive remedial care every two years. Mahoney v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 438 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), review denied, 447 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1984). Because the employer clearly did not have actual knowledge that Lee was continuing to use the TENS unit, we hold that the treatment was not “furnished by the employer.” We approve the d…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mahoney v. Sears, 419 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Goodyear Serv. Store & the Travelers Ins. Co. v. Rockey, 382 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- W. Liquors Corp. & Md. Cas. Co. v. Studer, 391 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)