GERALDINE DEVILLING, APPELLANT,
v.
RIMES, INC., D/B/A TOY KING; AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO.; STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES; AND DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT, 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.
A workers' compensation claimant appealed a decision denying her claim for additional benefits more than two years after her initial ankle injury was resolved. The court affirmed, holding that the claimant's use of support items (hose, inserts, cane, medication) did not constitute "remedial treatment furnished by the employer" sufficient to extend the statutory filing deadline.
The court held that not all medically recommended care extends the limitations period under section 440.19(l)(a). The claimant's occasional, at-will use of support items does not constitute treatment furnished by the employer within the meaning of the statute, and absent evidence of employer knowledge of continued use, such items cannot extend the filing deadline.
[1] The furnishing of medically recommended items for self-use does not constitute treatment furnished by the employer that extends the statute of limitations for filing a wo…
[2] The occasional, at-will use of medically recommended modalities does not extend the limitations period for filing a workers' compensation claim.
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“Not all medically recommended care is the type of treatment which will extend the limitations period under section 440.-19(l)(a).”
Establishes the key principle that medical recommendations alone do not extend the statutory filing deadline.
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 sustained a compensable ankle injury that was treated by her employer's physician. Upon release from active care, the doctor prescribed 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 Remedial Treatment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order by which it was determined that she did not sustain a compensable injury with a new employer, and that the claim against a prior employer was not filed within the time allowed under section 440.19, Florida Statutes. We conclude that the claimant has not demonstrated error with regard to either of these rulings.
The claimant previously sustained an ankle injury which was then accepted as compensable, with the employer at that time providing medical care. When the doctor released the claimant from active care he advised her to use support hose and prescribed shoe inserts for arch support. The doctor also approved the occasional use of a cane and medication for pain or inflammation as needed. More than two years after the last active medical care was provided the claimant experienced further problems with her ankle, and she then filed a claim for additional benefits.
The claimant seeks to extend the two-year limitations period which is now contained in section 440.19(l)(a), Florida Statutes, by arguing that the support hose, shoe inserts, cane, and medication is remedial treatment which was furnished by the employer. The claimant testified that she used these modalities within the two year period immediately before the claim was filed.
Not all medically recommended care is the type of treatment which will extend the limitations period under section 440.-19(l)(a). See Gonzalez v. Allure Shoe Corp., 160 So. 2d 703 (Fla.1964). Like the self-help that was medically recommended in Gonzalez, the claimant’s occasional at-will use of the various modalities in the present case does not extend the limitations period under the statute. Although the doctor indicated that the claimant should use the shoe inserts on a permanent basis, such use does not thereby become treatment furnished by the employer within the ambit of section 440.19(l)(a). Although continued use of a prescribed back brace extended the limitations period in Fuster v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 545 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), it was emphasized that the employer had actual knowledge of the continued use of the brace in the employment. There was no showing of similar employer knowledge in the present case.
The appealed order is affirmed.
ALLEN, KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fuster v. E. Airlines, 545 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Lida Gonzalez v. Allure Shoe Corp., 160 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1964)