TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, INC., F/K/A TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., AND PALMER & CAY, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
SUSIE COLEMAN, 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.
This workers' compensation appeal addresses whether a statute of limitations defense bars an injured worker's claim for additional medical benefits where the claimant did not seek treatment for over two years after declining surgery. The court holds that the statute of limitations is not tolled merely by failure to advise the worker of the limitations period itself, and remands for determination of whether the worker lacked knowledge of other specific workers' compensation rights.
The court reverses the denial of benefits and remands. The statute of limitations is not tolled merely by failure to inform the worker of the limitations period itself. However, the judge of compensation claims must determine on remand whether the worker lacked actual knowledge of any other pertinent rights under workers' compensation law and, if so, whether such ignorance caused her failure to obtain care during the two-year period following her last visit.
[1] The two-year statutory limitations period for workers' compensation benefits is not tolled by a failure to advise an injured worker that a statute of limitations exists.
[2] A claimant's knowledge of entitlement to medical benefits is a relevant factor in determining whether the statute of limitations has run.
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“the 'two-year statutory limitations period is not tolled by failure to advise an injured worker that a statute of limitations exists.'”
Establishes the core principle that mere non-disclosure of the limitations period does not extend the deadline for filing workers' compensation claims
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSusie Coleman sustained an industrial accident on October 21, 1992, and received medical benefits through Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare. In June 199…
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 Tolling cases and more on FLexlaw
BENTON, J.
Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare, Inc. (the hospital) provided Susie Coleman medical benefits on account of an industrial accident she sustained on October 21, 1992. In June of 1993, she declined rota-tor cuff surgery that Dr. Peter Loeb recommended. Although Dr. Loeb never released her from his care, she did not seek further evaluation or care until she did so through counsel by a letter addressed to the hospital’s servicing agent dated March 26,1997. The letter does not seek alternative medical care.
The servicing agent’s adjustor denied the claim for additional medical benefits on statute of limitations grounds. Compensation benefits had never been provided— Ms. Coleman never missed work — and more than two years had elapsed since medical benefits had been provided. At the hearing on the ensuing petition for benefits, the judge of compensation claims concluded that she had not been apprised of all of her rights under the workers’ compensation law but that the omission was not “intentional and done to deprive the employee of benefits.” § 440.19(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991).
After the hearing, however, the decision in Gaines v. Orange County Public Utilities, 710 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), came down. In his compensation order, the judge of compensation claims noted: “In Gaines, the Court found that § 440.19(4), Florida Statute[s] (Supp.1994) ... applies to pre-1994 dates of accident.” On this basis, the compensation order rejected the statute of limitations defense. We decline the hospital’s invitation to revisit the decision in Gaines.
In Solar Pane Insulating Glass, Inc. v. Hanssen, 727 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), which was decided after the compensation order had been entered, we made clear that the “two-year statutory limitations period is not tolled by failure to advise an injured worker that a statute of limitations exists.” 727 So. 2d at 964. It is also clear here as it was in Hanssen that the claimant knew of her entitlement to medical benefits. We therefore remand for the judge of compensation claims to determine whether she lacked actual knowledge of any other pertinent right under the workers’ compensation law and, if so, whether such ignorance accounted for her failure to obtain care during the two years following her last visit to Dr. Loeb.
Reversed and remanded.
BARFIELD, C.J., and WEBSTER, J., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Solar Pane Insulating Glass, Inc. v. Hanssen, 727 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Gaines v. Orange Cnty. Pub. Utils. & Johns E. Co., 710 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)