ROY T. BRINSON LATHING AND DRYWALL AND HILL, RICHARDS & COMPANIES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
HAROLD DEAN THOMAS, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Workers' Compensation Medical Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
We affirm the deputy’s order requiring reimbursement of outstanding medical bills and awarding continuing medical care. In October 1986, the claimant filed a claim for payment of medical bills incurred in June, 1985. These expenses were incurred within two years of the last medical care paid for by the e/c, which was provided in September, 1984 and paid in October, 1985. The e/c argues that the claim is now barred by the two year statute of limitation in section 440.19, Florida Statutes. We disagree. In ordering the e/c to pay for the June, 1985 care, the deputy determined that the June, 1985 treatment was care the e/c should have provided. Merely because the e/c chose not to pay for this treatment at the time does not mean the deputy could not later find the e/c’s decision to be incorrect and order payment for this care. Having found the medical treatment to be payable as of a date certain (and within two years of the last payment for such care), the claim for subsequent and continuing treatment filed within two years of that date would be timely. The deputy’s order is therefore AFFIRMED.
WENTWORTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sauer Indus. Contracting Inc. v. Ditch, 547 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…ereafter acted with reasonable promptness in pursuing his claim. In the circumstances of this case the claim against Sauer/CNA for reimbursement of the expense of the exercise program was timely filed. See Roy T. Brinson Lathing & Drywall v. Thomas, 530 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The orthopedist’s continued treatment of claimant was initially paid by Bechtel/Commercial Union. The doctor indicated that his continuing care related to both the effects of the 1984 accident, and the contributing effect of th…