LE'TAVIA JONES

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS-COLUMBIA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION/STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT

PER CURIAM.

Claimant, Le’tavia Jones, appeals the Judge of Compensation Claims’ (JCC) order denying her claim for temporary indemnity benefits for her mental injury based on his conclusion that section 440.093(3), Florida Statutes (2018), precluded her entitlement to such benefits because more than six months had elapsed since she reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) for her

accompanying physical injury. For the reasons explained below, we reverse.*

Facts

While Ms. Jones was working in a correctional facility, an inmate attacked her, placing her in a chokehold and causing neck and throat injuries. She attained physical MMI just two weeks later and was assigned a zero percent permanent impairment rating. As a result, she did not receive any permanent impairment benefits. In the meantime, Claimant’s authorized medical providers referred her for psychiatric treatment. The psychiatrist, in turn, also referred her for psychological care. Her ultimate diagnosis was acute stress and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The psychologist placed Ms. Jones on a no-work status until she reached psychological MMI on November 11, 2019, but deferred to the psychiatrist regarding psychiatric work restrictions and MMI. Appellees ceased paying indemnity benefits six months after Ms. Jones reached physical MMI, prompting her to file a claim for temporary benefits for the period of July 25, 2019, and continuing.

In his order denying this claim, the JCC found that temporary indemnity benefits for mental injuries are limited to six calendar months after a claimant reaches physical MMI pursuant to section 440.093(3), relying on Utopia Home Care/Guarantee Insurance Co. v. Alvarez, 230 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). And because Ms. Jones’ claim was for a period commencing more than six months post-MMI, the JCC concluded the statute precluded her entitlement to any additional indemnity benefits. As we now explain, we agree with Claimant that the JCC erred.

Analysis

Although the JCC correctly found that section 440.093(3)’s six-month limit on temporary benefits commences from the time a claimant reaches physical MMI, as opposed to being a bank of time,

* Because we reverse, we need not address Claimant’s constitutional arguments.

where he erred was finding that this limit applied to Ms. Jones despite the fact that she had not received, nor was receiving, any permanent impairment benefits. In W.G. Roe & Sons v. Razo-Guevara, 999 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), this court held in no uncertain terms that this statutory provision does not apply to a claimant not being paid impairment benefits. Therefore, because Ms. Jones’ mental injury manifested itself within six months of reaching physical MMI, and she was not receiving impairment benefits for her physical injury after reaching that point, section 440.093(3)’s statutory cap does not apply to her. Cf. Alvarez, 230 So. 3d at 72 (in which claimant received impairment benefits for her physical injury); Sch. Bd. of Lee Cnty. v. Huben, 165 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (in which claimant’s mental injury manifested more than six months after reaching physical MMI and she received impairment benefits for her physical injury).

REVERSED.

ROBERTS, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., concur. _____________________________