JOHN BENTON, APPELLANT,
v.
ICR ELECTRIC AND ITT HARTFORD, APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 2003-07-17
No. 1D02-0226
ERVIN, KAHN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
852 So. 2d 295 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2003) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.

Synopsis

An appeal from a Judge of Compensation Claims dismissing a workers' compensation death benefits claim with prejudice. The court reversed, holding that the JCC erred in applying the statute of limitations to minor dependents and in refusing to allow appointment of a guardian or representative to pursue their claims.


Holding

The statute of limitations is tolled while a minor has no guardian or authorized representative, and the limitations period does not begin running until a guardian is appointed or the minor reaches majority age. The JCC has an obligation to ensure minor interests are protected and should have permitted appointment of a guardian or representative before dismissing the claim with prejudice.


Headnotes

[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims has discretion in requiring the appointment of a guardian or representative for a claimant.

[2] A Judge of Compensation Claims has an obligation to ensure that the interests of minors are protected.

Previewing 2 of 5 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

Key Quotes

“the JCC has an obligation to ensure that the interests of minors are protected”

Establishes the JCC's duty to safeguard minor interests, limiting discretion to refuse guardian appointment

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The appellant sought death benefits under workers' compensation on behalf of the decedent's minor children. The JCC dismissed the claim with prejudice…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is a timely appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims dismissing a claim for death benefits with prejudice. Because the JCC erred in finding that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and in denying the appellant’s motion for appointment of a personal representative to pursue the claims of the decedent’s minor survivors, we reverse.

Section 440.17, Florida Statutes (1997), provides that the JCC may require the appointment by a court of competent jurisdiction of a guardian or other representative. The decision on whether to require appointment of a guardian or representative is discretionary. See Allure Shoe Corp. v. Lymberis, 173 So. 2d 702, 704 (Fla.1965); Cornelius v. Sunset Golf Course, 423 So. 2d 567, 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). However, the JCC has an obligation to ensure that the interests of minors are protected. See Cornelius, 423 So. 2d at 569. Here, the petition sought benefits for the minor children of the decedent, and therefore the JCC should have permitted the appellant to petition a court of competent jurisdiction for the appointment of a guardian or representative before dismissing the claim with prejudice.

Furthermore, the statute of limitations did not bar the claim of any minor dependents of the decedent. Pursuant to section 440.19(5), Florida Statutes (1997), the two-year limitations period is tolled while a minor or mentally incompetent person has no guardian or authorized representative:

If a person who is entitled to compensation under this chapter is mentally incompetent or a minor, the limitations period is tolled while that person has no guardian or other authorized representative, but the period shall begin to run from the date of appointment of such guardian or other representative, or in the case of a minor, if no guardian is appointed before the minor becomes of age, from the date the minor becomes of age.

Thus, the limitation period begins to run from the date of appointment of a guardian or representative, or from the date the minor becomes of age if no representative is appointed. Even if the petition for benefits was filed more than two years after the death of the claimant, a minor’s claim would not be barred by the statute of limitations. See Bailey’s Auto Serv. v. Mitchell, 85 So. 2d 228, 229 (Fla.1956). In the present case, the limitations period for any minor dependents of the decedent will not begin to run until a guardian or representative is appointed or until they reach the age of majority.

Therefore, we reverse the order dismissing the claim with prejudice, and remand for the JCC to permit the filing of a petition in a court of competent jurisdiction for appointment of a guardian or representative for any minor children.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ERVIN, KAHN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …Rather, subsection (1)'s two-year-limitationsperiod clock is “tolled,” or suspended, by subsection (5) until the guardian-less minor comes of age, at which time the claimant gets two years to file a claim (until age 20). See Benton v. ICR Electric, 852 So. 2d 295, 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding that "[e]ven if the petition for benefits was filed more than two years after the death of the claimant, a minor's claim would not be barred by the statute of limitations... [because] the limitations period ... will…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw