RODOLFO TROCHE, APPELLANT,
v.
GEICO AND RAWLINGS COMPANY, LLC, 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.
Rodolfo Troche appealed the denial of his workers' compensation claim for carpal tunnel syndrome in both wrists based on the statute of limitations. The court reversed, holding that in repetitive injury cases, the statute of limitations begins on the date of last exposure to the trauma, not the date of the initial claim.
In repetitive injury cases, the date of injury is deemed to be the last date of exposure to the trauma, not the date of the initial claim filing. Therefore, a claim filed within two years of the claimant's last injurious exposure is not barred by the statute of limitations, even if a previous claim for the same condition was filed and abandoned.
[1] In repetitive injury cases, the statute of limitations begins to run on the last date of exposure to the trauma.
[2] A prior workers' compensation claim for the same repetitive injury does not alter the commencement of the statute of limitations if exposure to the trauma continues.
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“In a repetitive injury case, the date of injury is generally deemed to be the last date of exposure to the trauma.”
Establishes the primary legal rule governing when the statute of limitations begins in repetitive injury cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant filed a workers' compensation claim for wrist injury on April 12, 2000. He later refiled the claim more than two years after his original fil…
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 Date Of Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant (“Claimant”) appeals the denial of his workers’ compensation claim for carpal • tunnel syndrome on both wrists. Because we find that Claimant suffered a repetitive injury, we reverse the lower court’s dismissal of his claim.
The Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denied Claimant’s petition for benefits regarding his condition in both wrists due to the statute of limitations set forth in section 440.19(1), Florida Statutes (2001). Claimant originally filed a claim for his wrist injury on April 12, 2000; thus, the JCC found he was barred from refiling the claim more than two years later. See Id. Based on existing case law, we find this ruling was in error. In a repetitive injury case, the date of injury is generally deemed to be the last date of exposure to the trauma. See, e.g., Barrett v. Douglas Fertilizer & Chem., 702 So. 2d 609, 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (holding that a claim filed within two years of the claimant’s last injurious exposure to certain herbicides and pesticides at work was not barred by statute of limitations); Tokyo House, Inc. v. Hsin Chu, 597 So. 2d 348, 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (holding that in the case of repetitive trauma, the statute of limitations begins on the last date of exposure to the trauma); City of Miami v. Tomberlin, 492 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Here, Claimant’s filing of a previous workers’ compensation claim for the same injury did not change the fact that he continued to suffer a new repetitive trauma each time he performed his job duties of entering data into a computer. Significantly, his duties did not change after he filed, and then abandoned, his initial claim. In fact, the notice of injury should have provided sufficient notice to Employer that his duties were causing injury. Had Employer taken steps to change Claimant’s job functions and eliminated his exposure to the repetitive injury, the statute of limitations would have run from the time Claimant filed his original notice of injury, as that would have been the last date he was exposed to this particular injury.
That was not the case, however, and Claimant was allowed to continue his job duties and continued to suffer its harmful actions. While the JCC is correct that no case law exists relating to situations where a claimant has filed a previous claim with his employer for the same condition, we hold that this has no effect on when the statute of limitations begins to run in a repetitive trauma injury. See Tomberlin, 492 So. 2d at 435 (holding that appellant’s claim was not barred by statute of limitations because of the “ongoing repeated exposure” to the injury, even though claimant was aware of the cause of his injuries more than two years prior to filing the claim).
Accordingly, we reverse the JCC’s order denying Claimant benefits and remand for the JCC to consider the merits of Claimant’s petition regarding his wrist injuries.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WEBSTER, LEWIS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rose v. GEICO & Broadspire, 90 So. 3d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…that “[t]he injury, [and] its occupational cause ... be established to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, based on objective relevant medical findings.” § 440.09(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). This court addressed a similar issue in Troche v. GEICO, 966 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), which provides instruction here. In Troche, this court reversed the JCC’s denial of a claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Id. at 461-62. In finding that Troche suffered a repetitive injury, the court noted that “[i]n a r…
-
Caceres v. Sedano's Supermarkets & Johns E. Co., Inc., 138 So. 3d 1224 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…for timely compliance. This court has noted that the date of injury in a case of repetitive trauma is generally deemed to be the last date of exposure to the trauma. See Rose v. Geico, 90 So. 3d 886, 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (citing Troche v. Geico, 966 So. 2d 460, 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)). Here, the JCC appears to have assumed that any report of injury more than thirty days after Claimant first had knowledge of his symptoms — i.e., the date of the initial manifestation — was too late. Nothing in the final or…
Authorities Cited
- Tokyo House, Inc. v. Hsin CHU & Am. Policyholders Ins. Co., 597 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- City OF Miami v. Tomberlin, 492 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Barrett v. Douglas Fertilizer & Chem., 702 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)