IVETTE PARRY, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTH MIAMI HOSPITAL AND PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATORS, 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.
Workers' compensation claim was not barred by the two-year statute of limitations because uncontradicted medical evidence showed continuous treatment within the two-year intervals, tolling the statute under section 440.19(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Receipt of medical care from an authorized provider at least once every two years for injuries causally related to an industrial accident tolls the statute of limitations under section 440.19(1)(b), Florida Statutes, despite the claimant's failure to request the employer and carrier to pay for the care.
[1] Under section 440.19(1)(b), Florida Statutes, receipt of medical care from an authorized provider at least once every two years for injuries causally related to an indust…
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 intelligence“receipt of medical care from an authorized provider at least once every two years for injuries causally related to the industrial accident tolls the statute of limitations despite the claimant's failure to request the employer and carrier to pay for the care”
Court cited Gilbert v. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority to establish the rule that tolling occurs through continuous medical treatment regardless of payment requests.
Claimant was injured in an industrial accident on February 12, 1992, and received medical treatment on February 14, 1992, October 26, 1993, October 25…
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 Authorized Treating Physician cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The claimant in this workers’ compensation case seeks review of an order holding that her claim was barred by the running of the statute of limitations. The uncon-tradicted medical evidence provided by her authorized treating physician establishes that the claimant was treated for symptoms related to her February 12, 1992, industrial accident on February 14, 1992, October 26, 1993, October 25, 1994, and August 15,1996. There was, therefore, no two-year lapse between treatments before the claimant filed her claim on March 25, 1997. As a result, the claim was not barred by the two-year statute of limitations contained in section 440.19(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1991). The decision to the contrary rendered by the judge of compensation claims was, accordingly, error. See Gilbert v. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, 674 So. 2d 818, 821-22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (receipt of medical care from an authorized provider at least once every two years for injuries causally related to the industrial accident tolls the statute of limitations despite the claimant’s failure to request the employer and carrier to pay for the care); Bray v. Electronic Door-Lift, Inc., 558 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (a judge of compensation claims may not reject uncontradicted medical testimony without a reasonable explanation). Therefore, we reverse.
REVERSED.
ERVIN, WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bray v. Elec. Door-Lift, Inc., 558 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Gilbert v. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Auth. & Isac, 674 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)