SODPOLIS, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANKLIN BANEGAS, 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.
Sodpolis and its workers' compensation insurance carrier appealed a trial court order granting an employee's petition to enforce medical benefits under a 1993 settlement agreement. The court reversed, holding that the employee's explicit acknowledgment in a signed affidavit that he understood the two-year statute of limitations on medical benefits barred his claim for surgery recommended in 1998, five years after the accident.
The court held that the employee was barred from receiving medical benefits because he allowed more than two years to expire without receiving any medical treatment, and he had explicitly acknowledged in a signed affidavit that he understood the two-year limitations period and that his attorney had explained his rights under the settlement agreement.
[1] A worker's compensation claimant who acknowledges in an affidavit that medical benefits will cease if more than two years pass without treatment is barred from receiving…
[2] A settlement agreement in a worker's compensation case that explicitly preserves the claimant's right to future medical treatment, subject to a two-year statute of limita…
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 responsibility of the Employer/Carrier for future medical benefits remains as it now is for the time and in the manner provided by law.”
Language from the 1993 settlement order that preserved medical benefits subject to the statutory two-year limitation period.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFranklin Banegas was injured in a work-related accident on August 30, 1992, while employed by Sodpolis, Inc. On November 17, 1993, Banegas signed a St…
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 Future Medical Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
RAMIREZ, J.
The employer and its insurance carrier appealed from a final order granting the employees petition for rule nisi to enforce a worker’s compensation order. The em ployer asserted that the employee’s claim for medical care was barred by the statute of limitations. We reverse based on Gulfstream Press, Inc. v. Acle, 697 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
On August 30, 1992, Franklin Banegas was involved in a work-related accident and injury while employed by Sodpolis, Inc. He received medical care and indemnity benefits from Sodpolis and its workers’ compensation insurance carrier, Travelers Insurance Company. On November 17, 1993, Banegas entered into a Stipulation and Joint Petition for Final Settlement of Compensation with Sodpolis and Travelers. The agreement provided for a lump-sum settlement and payment of all indemnity benefits that Banegas would be entitled to, with the exception of medical expenses. Banegas signed an affidavit in which he acknowledged the settlement agreement and stated that he understood that he maintained his right to medical treatment so long as he did not allow a period of greater than two years to expire without receiving such treatment. On November 23, 1993, the Judge of Compensation Claims entered an order approving the settlement stipulation of the parties. The final sentence of the order states that “[t]he responsibility of the Employer/Carrier for future medical benefits remains as it now is for the time and in the manner provided by law.”
In October of 1998, Banegas’ orthopedic surgeon recommended that he have surgery to remove screws that had been put into his ankles prior to the settlement agreement. Banegas subsequently filed a Petition for Rule Nisi with the trial court to enforce the medical attention provision of the 1993 order. Sodpolis and Travelers denied the medical treatment sought on the basis that the two-year statute of limitations had run pursuant to section 440.19, Florida Statutes, and that jurisdiction over the issue rested with the Judge of Compensation Claims. The trial court granted the Petition for Rule Nisi. Sodpolis and Travelers appeal. We reverse.
Banegas signed an affidavit on November 17, 1993, in which he acknowledged that he would not receive medical benefits if he allowed a period of greater than two years to expire without receiving treatment. He further acknowledged that he was represented by an attorney who explained the Stipulation and Joint Petition for Final Settlement of Compensation before he signed the agreement.
In Gulfstream Press, Inc. v. Acle, 697 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), the Judge of Compensation Claims signed a similar Order for Release From Liability containing the same language regarding future medical benefits. The First District reversed the judge’s ruling that the employer/carrier were estopped from relying on the statute of limitations defense.
In our case, as in Gulfstream Press, Banegas executed an affidavit which explicitly described the two-year limitations period and in which he certified that his attorney had advised him of his rights under the settlement agreement. Banegas is therefore barred from receiving medical benefits for the underlying treatment as it was undisputed that he allowed more than two years to expire without receiving any medical treatment.
Reversed.