HEALTH CENTRAL D/B/A WEST ORANGE MANOR AND SEDGWICK JAMES OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWIGE CESAR, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statute Of Limitations Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We conclude that the judge of compensation claims erred in precluding the employer and carrier from asserting a defense based on the statute of limitations. An employer who fails to provide an employee with the informational brochure required by section 440.185, Florida Statutes may be estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense, see Gaines v. Orange County Public Utilities, 710 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), but estoppel is not a bar to the defense in the present case because the claimant had actual knowledge of her rights under the worker’s compensation laws. See Solar Pane Insulating Glass, Inc. v. Hanssen, 727 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Accordingly, we must reverse the final order awarding benefits to the claimant.
WEBSTER, KAHN and PADOYANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crutcher v. Sch. Bd. OF Broward Cnty. & Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc., 834 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…n was a rejection of Appellant’s claim that a claimant need only show that the E/C failed to comply strictly with either section 440.185 or section 440.055 in order to estop the E/C’s statute of limitations defense. See also Health Central v. Cesar, 752 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We read the statute to say that after the E/C [*230] raises a statute of limitations defense, the claimant must prove that the E/C should be estopped from raising the defense. The burden of proof on the claimant is a preponderan…
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)