JOHN RINGLING TOWERS AND SECURITY INSURANCE GROUP, APPELLANT,
v.
MARCIA JEAN KLEIN, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a workers' compensation judge's order awarding medical care and prosthetic device benefits, holding that pending claims filed in 1983 and 1984 that were neither dismissed nor adjudicated kept the statute of limitations open for the claimant's later request for the same benefits.
A stipulation and settlement does not bar a claim for medical care when prior claims for the same benefits remain pending without formal resolution or dismissal. The statute of limitations for such claims remains open when the claimant's later request seeks the same benefit type as the earlier unresolved claims.
[1] A stipulation and settlement does not bar a claim for medical care if the underlying claims remain pending and were not dismissed or adjudicated.
[2] Claims filed for benefits under chapter 440 that are neither dismissed nor adjudicated remain pending.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“claims filed in 1983 and 1984, which were neither dismissed nor adjudicated, remained pending”
Establishes the factual foundation that earlier claims were never formally resolved, keeping the statute of limitations open
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant filed workers' compensation claims in 1983 and 1984 requesting payment for prosthetic devices and medical care related to an amputation 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 Tolling Of Statute Of Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Employer/carrier appeal a March 16, 1989 workers’ compensation order determining that the parties’ stipulation and settlement does not bar a claim for medical care, and awarding such benefits. We affirm.
The judge found that claims filed in 1983 and 1984, which were neither dismissed nor adjudicated, remained pending. Employer/carrier do not dispute this ruling, acknowledging that it is in accordance with decisions such as Strack v. Executive Motors Inc., 500 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), and Turner v. Keller Kitchen Cabinets, Southern Inc., 247 So. 2d 35 (Fla.1971).
Employer/carrier do contest the judge’s further finding that the pending claims “are the subject matter of this proceeding,” and the apparent conclusion that the limitations period thus remains open as to the benefits awarded upon that claim. Employer/carrier contend that this is an impermissible extension of the limitations period to a new claim, and cite Florida Structures Inc. v. Morton, 443 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
In Morton this court indicated that a general “shotgun” claim, which was filed shortly after the injury and which sought every benefit available under chapter 440, and which resulted in merits orders as to limited issues, does not toll the limitations period as to all subsequent benefits. But the present case does not involve these circumstances, as claimant did not file a mere shotgun claim, and no merits orders were entered. Claimant’s 1983 and 1984 claims expressly requested payment for prosthetic devices and medical care related to the amputation site. The present request, which was apparently made by application for hearing rather than the filing of a new claim, likewise seeks such medical care and a prosthetic device. Even though this is a later point in time, and the device now sought may be a replacement for the earlier devices, it is nevertheless the same benefit for which claims were pending. Since the earlier claims were neither formally resolved nor dismissed, the judge properly determined that the statute of limitations remained open as to claimant’s request for medical care related to the amputation site and a prosthetic device, and the award of such benefits upon that claim was not foreclosed.
Our foregoing conclusion moots an issue raised as to confusion in the order as to alleged waiver of the stipulation, since any error in this respect would be harmless in view of the pending claims.
Affirmed.
JOANOS and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Airey v. Wal-Mart/Sedgwick, 24 So. 3d 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…remains pending. See § 440.19(3), Fla. Stat. (2003). Accord Rice v. Reedy Creek Improvement Dist., 924 So. 2d 882, 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); McWilliams v. Americana Dutch Hotel, 595 So. 2d 253, 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); John Ringling Towers v. Klein, 573 So. 2d 154, 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). It is undisputed that the petition in this case met the statutory requirements. Moreover, once filed, a petition for benefits remains “pending until withdrawn by claimant, or acted upon, or dismissed upon motion.... ‘Passag…
-
Longley v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Gallagher Bassett Svcs., 82 So. 3d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…rties”). Because Louis and Bednañk are distinguishable on their facts, the JCC erred in analogizing the instant case to them. More apt analogy is made to Airey v. Wal-Mart/Sedgwick, 24 So. 3d 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), John Ringling Towers v. Klein, 573 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and Gilman v. South Florida Water Management District, 584 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In Airey, this court held the timely filed PFB, because it remained pending, “tolled” the statute of limitations. See 24 So. 3d at 1265.…
-
Mosco Gilman v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. & Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc., 584 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…in the appealed order, and even if it had been, this ground is completely without merit because the claim for attorneys’ fees reserved in the 1983 order was still pending and had not been dismissed. John Ringling Towers v. Security Insurance Group, 573 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The order dismissing the claim for attorneys’ fees and this cause is remanded with directions to adjudicate the claimant’s right to attorneys’ fees in respect to benefits obtained under the 1983 Joint Stipulation and Order. RE…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Joffre E. Turner v. Keller Kitchen Cabinets, 247 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1971)
- Strack v. Executive Motors, Inc., 500 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Fla. Structures, Inc. v. Hallie A. Morton, 443 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)