DAVID T. MYERS, APPELLANT,
v.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND RSKCO, 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.
A claimant's petition for permanent total disability benefits for a later time period is not barred by res judicata based on a prior denial of benefits for an earlier period, as each claim requires different factual showings regarding the claimant's inability to work at different times.
A prior denial of permanent total disability benefits for one time period does not bar a subsequent claim for permanent total disability benefits for a different time period.
[1] A claim for permanent total disability benefits for a later time period is not barred by res judicata where a prior claim for an earlier time period was denied, because e…
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 intelligenceThe claimant filed a petition for permanent total disability benefits from September 2005 in September 2006, after a prior petition for benefits from …
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 Modification Of Award cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The claimant challenges an order dismissing his claim for permanent total disability benefits as barred by res judicata. The claimant argues that a prior order finding he was not then entitled to permanent total disability benefits does not preclude a different claim for permanent total disability benefits for a later period. Because the claimant’s new claim is not barred by res judicata, the order is reversed.
In September 2006, the claimant filed a petition for permanent total disability benefits from September 2005. The claimant had previously filed a petition for permanent total disability benefits from April 2000, and that claim was denied in April 2004. The September 2006 claim for permanent total disability benefits involves a different time frame from the April 2000 claim, and thus requires a different factual showing as to the claimant’s inability to work at this later time. Such claim was not ripe for review at the earlier hearing, and is not barred by res judicata. See St. Joseph Hosp. v. Causey, 667 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Because the earlier denial of benefits for the prior time period did not go to the entire merits of future disability claims, the claimant is not required to seek modification under section 440.28, Florida Statutes. See Causey, 667 So. 2d at 468.
Accordingly, the order is reversed and the ease is remanded.
ALLEN, WOLF, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
HDV Constr. Sys., Inc. v. Aragon, 66 So. 3d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…date of overall maximum medical improvement through the date of the final hearing, but for no period thereafter. The JCC cited Temples v. WDW Hospitality & Recreation Corp., 993 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), and Myers v. Hillsborough School Board, 982 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), as authority for his refusal to award benefits beyond the date of merit hearing. Although these cases support the proposition that a claimant, under specified circumstances, may permissibly bring sequential claims for PTD benefi…
Authorities Cited
- ST. Joseph Hosp. & Sedgwick James of Fla., Inc. v. Causey, 667 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)