CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY AND FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM BAILEY, 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 court held that a workers' compensation claim for medical care was untimely because it was filed more than two years after the last payment for medical treatment and the care was not furnished by the employer.
[1] A workers' compensation claim for medical care is barred by the statute of limitations if not filed within two years after the last payment of compensation or the last me…
[2] Medical care is not considered furnished by the employer for the purpose of tolling the statute of limitations when the limitations period has expired and the employer ha…
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 intelligenceA claimant sustained a compensable injury in 1984 and received authorized medical care. Indemnity benefits were settled in 1989, with the last medical…
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 Worker'S Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, Judge.
The employer/carrier appeal a workers’ compensation order by which the judge awarded payment for medical care. We conclude that the claim should have been denied because it was untimely under section 440.19(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1983).
The claimant sustained a compensable injury in 1984, and medical care was authorized with Dr. Csenscitz. Indemnity benefits were settled in 1989, and the last payment for medical treatment was made in November 1991. The claimant returned to Dr. Csen-scitz in March 1994, and sought payment for this visit by a claim filed in January 1995. The employer/carrier interposed a statute of limitations defense under section 440.19(l)(b), asserting that they had not paid compensation or furnished medical care within the preceding two years.
As it pertains in the circumstances of this case, section 440.19(l)(b) bars medical claims unless filed within two years after the last payment of compensation, or the last medical care “furnished by the employer.” Relying on McNeilly v. Farm Stores, 553 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), the judge ruled that the claimant’s 1994 office visit with Dr. Csenscitz was medical care furnished by the employer because Dr. Csenscitz had previously been authorized and was never deauthorized. But unlike the present case, McNeilly involved care within the two year limitations period, which the court noted in stating that a claimant is “not obligated to obtain further authorization for treatment by an authorized physician within the two year limitations period.” See also Seamco Laboratories, Inc. v. Pearson, 424 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
The limitations period had expired in the present ease before the claimant returned to Dr. Csenscitz in 1994, and the record does not suggest that the employer/carrier accepted responsibility for this care. Such care was thus not furnished by the employer, and the claim should have been denied as untimely under section 440.19(l)(b). The appealed order is therefore reversed.
BARFIELD and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McNEILLY v. Farm Stores, Inc., 553 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Seamco Labs., Inc. v. Pearson, 424 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)