SPECIAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND, APPELLANT,
v.
PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, F.A. RICHARD & ASSOCIATES, INC., 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.
The Special Disability Trust Fund appeals a decision allowing an employer/carrier to pursue a workers' compensation reimbursement request despite filing it after the applicable statute of limitations expired. The court reversed, holding that the Fund's 2003 letter requesting corrections to the reimbursement form was not a contract offer that could extend the limitations period.
The court held that no contract was formed because the 2003 letter did not constitute a valid offer to extend the limitations period. The letter explicitly stated the form 'ha[d] not yet been approved for payment' and did not address the limitations period. The October 2004 acceptance was ineffective because it occurred after the limitations period had already expired.
[1] A party's request for reimbursement is barred by the statute of limitations if a hearing is not requested within the applicable period.
[2] A letter requesting initialing of changes to a reimbursement form and stating the form has not yet been approved for payment does not constitute a contract or offer.
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“to the contrary, it explicitly stated that the form "ha[d] not yet been approved for payment."”
Establishes that the 2003 letter did not constitute a contract offer because it indicated the form was still under review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn employee was injured at work on May 2, 1987, and the accident was deemed compensable. The employer/carrier filed a reimbursement request on Februar…
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 Counteroffer cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, C.J.
Appellant challenges a ruling that, despite the untimeliness of the Employer/Carrier’s (E/C) request for a hearing on the denial of a 1999 request for reimbursement, Appellant had made a counter-offer to resolve the request, the acceptance of which rendered irrelevant the expiration of the limitations period. Because no contract was formed before the limitations period expired, we reverse.
This case had its genesis when, on May 2, 1987, an employee not party to this case was injured at work. The accident was deemed compensable and, on February 16, 1999, E/C filed an SDF-2 reimbursement request form with Appellant. On September 19, 2003, Appellant returned the SDF-2 with “discrepancies” noted, and asked E/C to “please initial the changes ... and return.” E/C did so on October 21, 2004. In November 2004, Appellant denied the request as untimely.
On October 17, 2005, E/C moved to set a hearing on the matter. After the hearing, the Judge of Compensation Claims concluded that the request for a hearing was untimely, but found that the 2003 letter from Appellant constituted a counter-offer to resolve the request, and that the 2004 letter from E/C was an acceptance that formed a binding contract, and ordered reimbursement.
We disagree that this exchange supplanted the ordinarily applicable statute of limitations. The 2003 letter did not indicate a contract or offer, nor did it mention the limitations period; to the contrary, it explicitly stated that the form “ha[d] not yet been approved for payment.” Moreover, it was written before the limitations period lapsed, and so the October 21, 2004, letter, written after the limitations period lapsed, could not have constituted acceptance of an offer to extend the limitations period. We find Special Disability Trust Fund v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 397 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), review denied, 402 So. 2d 607 (Fla.1981), to be factually analogous.
In the absence of a contract, the statute of limitations is four years from the end of each interval of periodic reimbursement. See § 95.11(3)(f), Fla. Stat. (1999); Associated Coca Cola v. Special Disability Trust Fund, 508 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The interval of periodic reimbursement applicable in the instant case is one year. See § 440.49(7)(f), Fla. Stat. (1999). Because the request was filed on February 16, 1999, the limitations period began to run on February 16, 2000, and lapsed on February 16, 2004. Therefore, E/C’s 2005 request for a hearing was untimely, and the 1999 request for reimbursement is barred.
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DAVIS and LEWIS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Associated Coca Cola & Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Special Disability Tr. Fund, 508 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Special Disability Tr. Fund v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. & Parkway Gen. Hosp., 397 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)