PETE JEFFREY RIGGS, APPELLANT,
v.
AL RASKA CONTRACTING/MISSION NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY/F.I.G.A., APPELLEES
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.
Appellant's claim for permanent impairment benefits was not barred by the two-year statute of limitations because the employer/carrier failed to provide adequate notice of his entitlement to such benefits.
The two-year statute of limitations in Section 440.19(2)(a) does not bar a workers' compensation claim for permanent impairment benefits when the employer/carrier fails to provide adequate notice of the claimant's eligibility.
[1] The employer/carrier's obligation to notify injured workers of their entitlement to workers' compensation benefits is not satisfied by a letter providing only vague refer…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 24, 1985, the employer/carrier sent the claimant a letter explaining his wage loss benefits but providing only a vague reference to other p…
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 Self-Executing Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, the claimant in a workers’ compensation case, appeals an order denying his claim for permanent impairment benefits based upon the two year statute of limitations found in Section 440.19(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1981). We find that since the employer/carrier did not afford adequate notice to the claimant of his possible entitlement to permanent impairment benefits because of the amputation of his finger, the statute did not apply. Therefore, we reverse the order on appeal.
On January 24, 1985, the employer/carrier sent a letter to the claimant which provided a detailed explanation of the claimant’s rights to wage loss benefits, but which, in contrast, provided only a vague reference to his possible right to other benefits under the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act.
The Florida Workers’ Compensation Act is designed to be self-executing, and the employer/carrier carries the obligation to notify injured workers of their possible en titlement to benefits. We find that the January 24, 1985 letter did not afford the claimant adequate notice of his eligibility for permanent impairment benefits, and therefore the claim was not barred by Section 440.19(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1981). Wood v. McTyre Trucking Co., 526 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
The order on appeal is reversed, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
WENTWORTH, JOANOS and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Timmeny v. Tropical Botanicals Corp./Zurich Ins. Co., 615 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…d 911 (Fla.1969) (E/C estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense because of its failure to disclose a physician’s report recommending further medical care to the claimant); Riggs v. Al Raska Contracting/Mission Nat’l Ins. Co., [*816] 573 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (employee’s claim for permanent impairment benefits was not barred by the two-year statute of limitations, because employer’s notice to claimant did not adequately describe the availability of benefits other than wage loss); Depa…
-
Katia Gauthier v. Fla. Int'l Univ. & Div. of Risk Mgmt., 38 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…e 2007. We agree. To hold otherwise would permit E/Cs “to' shirk their responsibilities and obligations to notify claimant[s] of possible benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act.” Wood, 526 So. 2d at 742; see also Riggs v. Al Raska Contracting, 573 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“[The] Workers’ Compensation Act is designed to be self executing, and the [E/C] carries the obligation to notify injured workers of their possible entitlement to benefits.”). In view of our employer-monitored system, we reject…
Authorities Cited
- Wood v. McTYRE Trucking Co., Inc., 526 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)