COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY AND AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
BURNELL TUNSON, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT, V. COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY AND ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, CROSS-APPELLEES/APPELLANTS
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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed that the statute of limitations did not bar the claimant's claim but reversed the award of temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, holding that such benefits cannot be paid after a claimant reaches maximum medical improvement (MMI).
The court held that the claim was timely filed within two years of the last payment and was not barred by the statute of limitations. However, TTD benefits cannot be awarded after a claimant reaches maximum medical improvement. The court remanded for the deputy to determine the date of MMI and to award appropriate wage loss or permanent benefits supported by competent substantial evidence.
[1] A workers' compensation claim is not barred by the statute of limitations if filed within two years of the last payment of compensation or medical benefits.
[2] A deputy commissioner must adjudicate all issues ripe for determination, including claims for benefits during a specific period.
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“We find that the claim against the employer and the carriers Aetna and St. Paul was filed within two years from the date of the last payment of compensation or medical benefits. It is therefore not barred by the statute of limitations.”
Establishes the court's holding on the statute of limitations issue, affirming the deputy's determination that the claim was timely.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant Burnell Tunson filed a workers' compensation claim against Coca-Cola Bottling Company and its carriers, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company and S…
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 Wage Loss Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
[*911] THOMPSON, Judge.
The employer carrier (EC) appeals an order which found that the statute of limitations does not bar the claim and that claimant is due temporary total disability (TTD) compensation. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The appellant Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (Aetna) contends: (1) the deputy commissioner (deputy) erred in requiring Aetna to pay a portion of claimant’s claim because the statute of limitations had run as to it; (2) the deputy erred in finding the claimant was entitled to TTD benefits; and (3) the deputy erred in ordering that the TTD benefits continue for as long as the claimant remains in that category of disability. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul) contends: (1) the deputy did not err in finding the statute of limitations had not run as to Aetna; (2) the deputy erred in finding the claimant was entitled to TTD benefits; and (3) the deputy erred in ordering that the TTD benefits continue for as long as the claimant remains in that category. Claimant cross-appealed and assigned as error the award of TTD benefits notwithstanding uncontra-dicted medical evidence that the claimant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI), and the deputy’s failure to determine the claimant's entitlement to benefits for 1986.
We find that the claim against the employer and the carriers Aetna and St. Paul was filed within two years from the date of the last payment of compensation or medical benefits. It is therefore not barred by the statute of limitations. Daniel v. Holmes Lumber Co., 490 So. 2d 1252 (Fla.1986).
The deputy failed to make a determination on claimant’s claim for benefits during 1986. This issue was ripe for adjudication and should have been decided by the deputy. Bailey v. Hawes Chrysler-Plymouth, 410 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). On remand the deputy is instructed to make a finding as to what benefits, if any, the claimant is entitled to for the year 1986.
The remaining issues all relate to the award of TTD benefits. The uncontradict-ed medical testimony is that the claimant had reached MMI, and therefore TTD bene-, fits are not properly payable after the claimant had reached MMI. Dan’s Plumbing v. Smith, 410 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The award of TTD benefits is reversed and the cause is remanded with instructions for the deputy to determine the date the claimant reached MMI and to award such wage loss benefits or other permanent benefits, if any, which the record indicates are supported by competent substantial evidence.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.
ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keller Kitchen Cabinets & Alexis, Inc. v. Holder, 586 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…disability. Clyatt Memorial, Inc. v. Scott, 394 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Temporary total disability is generally unavailable for periods after the date of MMI except as above noted upon changed condition. Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. Tunson, 534 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Department of Offender Rehabilitation v. Godwin, 394 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Except to the extent that Section 440.28 permits modification, compensation orders are governed by the same principles of res judicata and est…
-
Orange Cnty. Sch. Bd. & United Self-insured Servs. v. Melman, 721 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…rse. The general rule is that a claimant may receive permanent, but not temporary, total disability benefits after reaching maximum medical improvement. See Corral v. McCrory Corp., 228 So. 2d 900, 903 (Fla. 1969); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Tunson, 534 So. 2d 910, 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Department of Offender Rehabilitation v. Godwin, 394 So. 2d 1091, 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Broward County Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Damore, 391 So. 2d 286, 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). “The date of maximum medical improvement m…
Authorities Cited
- Higdon v. State, 490 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 1986)
- Bailey v. Hawes Chrysler-Plymouth & Lynn Underwriting Co., 410 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Dan's Plumbing & CNA Ins. v. Smith, 410 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)