KATHLEEN WEAVER, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHERN BELL AND BELL SOUTH INSURANCE, 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.
The court affirmed the JCC's statute of limitations bar to a workers' compensation claim, finding that the claimant failed to raise most of her arguments before the trial court and that the evidence supported the finding that the employer lacked actual knowledge of continued arm sling use necessary to toll the statute.
A workers' compensation claim barred by the two-year statute of limitations under Fla. Stat. §§ 440.19(2)(a) and (b) is properly affirmed when the claimant fails to raise arguments before the JCC and the evidence supports the finding that the employer lacked actual knowledge of continued injury manifestations.
[1] Arguments not substantially raised before the trial court in workers' compensation proceedings will not be considered for the first time on appeal.
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 intelligenceKathleen Weaver filed a workers' compensation claim against Southern Bell and Bell South Insurance. The JCC found the claim barred by the statute of l…
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 Workers' Compensation Statute Of Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) found that this workers’ compensation claim was barred by the statute of limitations found at sections 440.19(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1979). Claimant’s appellate counsel did not represent her at the hearing below. On appeal appellant raises five arguments to support her contention that the two-year statute of limitations has not run in this ease. The JCC made findings concerning only one of these arguments, that being appellant’s purported use of an arm sling. The JCC’s findings that the appellees did not have actual knowledge of appellant’s continued use of an arm sling so as to toll the statute of limitations is supported by competent substantial evidence. None of the other four arguments raised on this appeal were brought up before the JCC in any meaningful way. ' No theory of avoidance of the statute of limitations appears on the pretrial stipulation, and no argument concerning avoidance of the statute of limitations was offered for the JCC’s consideration. This court is not “the tribunal of first resort on complex questions latent in the record but not substantially raised [below].” Sunland Hosp./State of Fla. v. Garrett, 415 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
AFFIRMED.
KAHN, DAVIS and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Univ. OF W. Fla. & Alexsis Risk Mgmt. v. Mixson, 752 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…unty Sheriffs Department v. Grice, 692 So. 2d 896 (Fla.1997). Because our review of the record leads us to conclude that this issue was never presented to the judge of compensation claims, we will not consider it. See, e.g., Weaver v. Southern Bell, 703 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (an argument that has not been presented in any meaningful way to the judge of compensation claims will not be considered on appeal). The employer and servicing agent next argue that the judge of compensation claims erred in usi…
-
State v. McGRATH, 774 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…ly calculated before Acker would dramatically increase the Fund’s expenditures and could impact its fiscal soundness. We decline to reach this argument, however, because it was not raised in any meaningful manner below. See Weaver v. Southern Bell, 703 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). While the argument was mentioned in the written “Closing Argument” filed by appellant’s counsel after thé final hearing, the record is devoid of evidence, including any evidence relating to the fiscal impact of a retroactive app…
-
Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. & Rskco v. Taylor, 786 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…uare 6 AMC Theaters, 731 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). We do not consider the lack of a written fee agreement as this issue was never presented to the JCC. See Univ. of W. Fla. v. Mixson, 752 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Weaver v. Southern Bell, 703 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). AFFIRM. VAN NORTWICK and LEWIS, JJ., CONCUR; BENTON, J., CONCURS with opinion.…
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
- Sunland Hospital/State OF Florida v. Garrett, 415 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)