MICHAEL T. THOMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
JACKSONVILLE ELECTRIC AUTHORITY, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the court reversed the deputy commissioner's denial of benefits for prescribed medication (Vicodin) received after the worker reached maximum medical improvement. The court held that palliative treatment, including prescribed medication, tolls the statute of limitations under Florida law, making the claimant's July 7, 1987 claim timely filed.
Yes. The court held that the prescribed medication (Vicodin) received on May 27, 1987 tolled the statute of limitations, making the July 7, 1987 claim for benefits timely filed. The statute of limitations is tolled not only by strictly curative care but also by palliative treatment provided by the employer.
[1] Palliative treatment, including prescribed medication, is considered "remedial treatment" for the purpose of tolling the statute of limitations in workers' compensation c…
[2] The statute of limitations for a workers' compensation claim is tolled by the furnishing of remedial treatment, which includes palliative care reasonably necessary to tre…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the word 'remedial' as used in section 440.19 should be interpreted to include all medical treatment or attention which is reasonably necessary to treat a compensable injury or to mitigate its effects or conditions.... [n]ot only strictly curative care, but also palliative treatment”
Establishes the broad interpretation of 'remedial' treatment under the statute of limitations provision, including palliative care
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Thomas injured his lower back in May 1979 during employment with Jacksonville Electric Authority. He reached maximum medical improvement in 19…
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 Palliative Care cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
The claimant in this workers’ compensation appeal injured his lower back in the course and scope of employment in May 1979. Claimant reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) in 1984 and continued to have flare-ups after that time which required palliative care. Dr. Scharf provided that care and prescribed Darvocet-N 100 which is a centrally acting narcotic analgesic agent that Dr. Scharf prescribed for claimant both before and after the date of MMI. Claimant refilled the prescription a number of times between February 18, 1985 and April 15, 1987.
Claimant continued to suffer low back pain and was prescribed the drug Vicodin which he received on May 27, 1987. The employer refused to pay for this prescription and refused to pay for further treatment. A claim for benefits was filed July 7, 1987. The employer/carrier asserted that the statute of limitations, section 440.-19(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1979),1 had run.
In his order, the deputy commissioner (DC) found the case of Domas v. Food Fair Stores, Inc., 5 F.C.R. 198 (1963) to be controlling. Although that case involved the drug Robaxin, which is a central nervous system depressant and sedative, the DC found that that drug, like the drug involved in the instant case, is used for palliative treatment of musculoskeletal problems and therefore the statute of limitations was not tolled. Relief was denied claimant for this reason and the claimant appealed.
City of Orlando v. Blackburn, 519 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) was decided on December 9, 1987. The instant order is dated December 21,1987. There is no indication, however, that the DC considered Blackburn which case requires reversal in the instant case.
The DC’s denial of the claim in the instant case was based on an understanding that the palliative treatment provided claimant in the form of prescribed medication did not toll the statute of limitations, section 440.19, Fla.Stat. (1979), and thus the period within which the claim could be brought had run. In Blackburn we affirmed the DC’s grant of payment for prescribed medication on the ground that “the word ‘remedial’ as used in section 440.19 should be interpreted to include all medical treatment or attention which is reasonably necessary to treat a compensable injury or to mitigate its effects or conditions.... [n]ot only strictly curative care, but also palliative treatment_” Id. at 1018.
In this case, the prescribed medication received May 27, 1987 tolled the statute of limitations and thus the July 7, 1987 claim for benefits was timely filed.
REVERSED.
BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . The right to compensation for disability, impairment, or wage loss under this chapter shall be barred unless a claim therefor which meets the requirements of paragraph (d) is filed within 2 years after the time of injury, except that, if payment of compensation has been made or remedial treatment has been furnished by the employer on account of such injury, a claim may be filed within 2 years after the date of the last remedial treatment furnished by the employer.
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)…on claims therefor filed under section 440.19 more than two years after the claimant reached MMI because the employer had made payments for “palliative” care during the two year time limitation period. E.g. Thomas v. Jacksonville Electric Authority, 536 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); City of Orlando v. Blackburn, 519 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). These awards have been made on the basis of a new claim for benefits under section 440.19 without requiring modification of any previous order establishing claim…
-
Ginsberg v. ChemMED Corp., 929 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…decisions of this court cite the date the prescription was received as [*636] the date the statute of limitations begins to run, these cases do not address the narrow issue presented by claimant in this case. See Thomas v. Jacksonville Elec. Auth., 536 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (holding that the prescribed medication in that case received on May 27, 1987, tolled the statute of limitations and therefore, the July 7, 1987 claim for benefits was timely filed); City of Orlando v. Blackburn, 519 So. 2d 1017…
-
Pomerantz v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off. & Usis, 131 So. 3d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…e of the statute. Consequently, we hold that the JCC did not err when she found that the date the statute began to run was the date the Claimant received/filled the prescription for medication in July of 2011. See Thomas v. Jacksonville Elec. Auth., 536 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); City of Orlando v. Blackburn, 519 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The JCC’s order denying and dismissing the Claimant’s petition for benefits based on the running of the statute of limitations is, therefore, affirmed. VAN NOR…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Orlando & Gallagher Bassett Ins. Co. v. Blackburn, 519 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)