SCOTT BLACK, APPELLANT,
v.
TOMOKA STATE PARK AND DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT/STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
In a workers' compensation case, the court reversed the Judge of Compensation Claims' denial of claimant's petition for benefits as barred by the statute of limitations. The court held that pending claims for attorney's fees and costs from a prior petition toll the statute of limitations, even when the underlying medical benefits claims have been resolved.
Pending claims asserted via petition for benefits—even claims for fees and costs—toll the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations was therefore not a bar to the claimant's subsequent petition for benefits because claims for fees and costs from the prior petition remained pending and unresolved.
[1] A prior petition for benefits that asserts claims for medical benefits and attorney's fees and costs, and where the medical benefits claims are resolved but the attorney'…
[2] The voluntary dismissal of a petition for benefits, with an express reservation of attorney's fees and costs, does not extinguish those reserved claims for the purpose of…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“pending claims asserted via PFB — even claims for fees and costs — toll the statute of limitations”
Statement of the controlling legal rule that resolves the case and reverses the lower court's statute of limitations bar
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant filed an initial petition for benefits asserting claims for medical benefits and attorney's fees and costs. The medical benefits claims were …
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 Petition For Benefits (Pfb) cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying, as barred by the statute of limitations, all claims asserted in his petition for benefits (PFB) filed in February 2011. Claimant raises two arguments in the alternative to each other. Because we conclude reversal is warranted on one of those arguments, we decline to address the other.
Longley v. Miami-Dade County School Board, 82 So.3d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), is dispositive. The facts of Longley are analogous to the facts here. In both cases, the claimants had filed a prior PFB, compliant with section 440.192, Florida Statutes, asserting both a claim for medical benefits and claims for attorney’s fees and costs. In both cases, the claims for medical benefits in those prior PFBs were resolved — by agreement in Longley (memorialized by letter cancelling mediation), and here by Claimant’s voluntary dismissal of the PFB. In both cases, the claims for fees and costs were expressly reserved upon (not dismissed) — in Longley, by the letter’s statement that “there are no other *974outstanding issues other than attorney’s fees and costs,” and here by the wording of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, “reserving any claim for attorney’s fees and costs relating thereto.” In both cases, the outstanding claims for fees and costs were not thereafter resolved, and were not dismissed for lack of prosecution under the authority of section 440.25(4)(i), Florida Statutes. In both cases, a subsequent PFB (the disposition of which was appealed in each), seeking benefits for the same date of accident, was denied as barred by the statute of limitations. And in both cases, the same rule applies: pending claims asserted via PFB — even claims for fees and costs — toll the statute of limitations.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
LEWIS, CLARK, and RAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
F.T.M.I. Operator, LLC v. Anne Marie Limith, 140 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ry 2012. The E/C argues that it is irreparably harmed because the denial of its motion to dismiss the pending claim for attorney’s fees and costs has “forever stripped” its right to assert the statute of limitations. See Black v. Tomoka State Park, 106 So. 3d 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (reaffirming rule set forth in Longley v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 82 So. 3d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), that pending claims asserted via PFB for attorney’s fees and costs toll statute of limitations). The E/C, however, failed to…
-
Anne Marie Limith v. Lenox ON the Lake dba Ftmi Operator, LLC, 163 So. 3d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…2013— after the order denying the E/C’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. We agree; section 440.25(4)(i), Florida Statutes, the authority for motions to dismiss, applies to pending fee claims asserted by PFB. See Black v. Tomoka State Park, 106 So. 3d 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Although the predecessor JCC had technically dismissed the 2011 PFB and reserved jurisdiction over the claims for fees and costs (without adjudicating entitlement), there is no authority for finding, as Claimant would have us do…
-
Hosps. E., LLC v. Hampton, 330 So. 3d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…hat the 2015 order’s reservation of jurisdiction over the amount of fees and costs—together with absence of any evidence that the amount had been resolved—tolled the statute of limitations. Both relied on the authority of Black v. Tomoka State Park, 106 So. 3d 973, 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“[T]he same rule [as in Longley v. Miami-Dade County School Board, 82 So. 3d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)] applies: pending claims asserted via PFB—even claims for fees and costs— toll the statute of limitations.”). On de novo…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Longley v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Gallagher Bassett Svcs., 82 So. 3d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)