JUNE HOUSTON-MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
U.S. FIRE INSURANCE AND CRUM & FORSTER COMMERCIAL INSURANCE, APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 1996-02-20
No. 95-501
BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
668 So. 2d 653 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1996) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

June Houston-Miller appealed the dismissal of her workers' compensation petition on statute of limitations grounds, arguing that payment of her attorney's fee should toll the two-year limitations period. The court held that attorney's fees are not "compensation" under Florida law and therefore do not toll the statute of limitations.


Holding

The court held that payment of an attorney's fee to a claimant's attorney is not "payment of compensation" within the meaning of section 440.19(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), and therefore does not toll the statute of limitations. The JCC properly dismissed the petition based on the running of the two-year statute of limitations.


Headnotes

[1] The payment of an attorney's fee to a claimant's attorney does not constitute the "payment of compensation" for the purpose of tolling the statute of limitations under se…

[2] "Compensation" as defined by section 440.02(6), Florida Statutes, refers to the money allowance payable to an employee or dependents, not attorney's fees.

Previewing 2 of 4 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

Key Quotes

“the payment of an attorney's fee to the claimant's attorney is not the "payment of compensation" within the meaning of section 440.19(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1985)”

The court's holding that attorney's fees do not toll the statute of limitations

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Houston-Miller filed a petition for workers' compensation benefits. The petition was dismissed by the Judge of Compensation Claims as barred by the tw…

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.


Opinion of the Court
DAVIS, Judge.

DAVIS, Judge.

The appellant, June Houston-Miller, appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (“JCC”) dismissing her petition for benefits on the ground that her petition for benefits was barred by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in section 440.19(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1985). The claimant argues that the payment of an attorney’s fee to her attorney within the two-year period set forth in section 440.19(l)(b) should be considered the “payment of compensation” thereby tolling the statute of limitations. We hold that the payment of an attorney’s fee to the claimant’s attorney is not the “payment of compensation” within the meaning of section 440.19(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), and affirm.

Section 440.19(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), provides in part:

All rights for remedial attention under this section shall be barred unless a claim therefor which meets the requirements of paragraph (d) is filed with the division within 2 years after the time of injury, except that, if payment of compensation has been made or remedial attention or rehabilitative services have been furnished by the employer without an award on account of such injury, a claim may be filed within 2 years after the date of the last payment of compensation or within 2 years after the date of the last remedial attention or rehabilitative services furnished by the employer....

Section 440.02(6), Florida Statutes (1985) defines “compensation” as “the money allowance payable to an employee or to his dependents as provided for in this chapter.”

This court has held that attorney’s fees are not “compensation” within the meaning of section 440.20(8), Florida Statutes, which provides for a penalty for “compensation” not paid within 30 days after it becomes due. See Department of Transp. v. Walker, 634 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Amodei v. GCC Beverages, 449 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The claimant argues, however, that in Spaulding v. Albertson’s, Inc., 610 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), this court considered attorney’s fees to be “compensation” within the meaning of section 440.20(9), which provides for the payment of interest if any installment of “compensation” is not paid when it becomes due.1 We find the claimant’s argument to be without merit. In Spaulding, the court held that interest on an award of appellate attorney’s fees began to accrue on the date of the JCC’s order awarding attorney’s fees. Spaulding, 610 So. 2d at 724. Interest accrues on an award of attorney’s fees from the date of the award by the JCC, even though chapter 440 does not expressly provide for the allowance of interest on an award of attorney’s fees. Stone v. Jeffres, 208 So. 2d 827 (Fla.1968).

Because the payment of an attorney s fee to the claimant’s attorney is not the “payment of compensation” under section 440.19(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), we hold that the JCC properly dismissed the claimant’s petition for benefits based upon the running of the two-year statute of limitations. The order of the JCC is therefore AFFIRMED.

BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur. . The claimant concedes that the Spaulding opinion does not specify that interest on the award of attorney’s fees was payable pursuant to section 440.20(9).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Sanchez v. Am. Airlines & Sedgwick CMS, 169 So. 3d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
    …is neither a payment of compensation nor the furnishing of medical treatment — the only two events that will extend the statute of limitations under subsection 440.19(2). Specifically, this court determined in Houston-Miller v. U.S. Fire Insurance, 668 So. 2d 653, 653-54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), that for purposes of determining whether the statute of limitations ran, “payment of an attorney’s fee to the claimant’s attorney is not the ‘payment of compensation’ within the meaning of section 440.19(l)(b), Florida S…
  • …that the payment of an attorney’s fee is neither a payment of compensation nor the furnishing of medical treatment—the only two events that will extend the statute of limitations under subsection 440.19(2).” (citing Houston-Miller v. U.S. Fire Ins., 668 So. 2d 653, 653–54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996))); see also Hosps. E., LLC v. Hampton, 330 So. 3d 565, 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (holding that “reservation over amount of fees and costs does not toll the statute of limitations”). This interpretation of the statute gives…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw