CANADA DRY BOTTLING COMPANY OF FLORIDA, INC., EMPLOYER, AND FIREMAN'S FUND INDEMNITY COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER,
v.
S. H. WHITE, CLAIMANT, AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed an award of workers' compensation to an employee who filed his claim more than three years after his workplace injury. The court held that despite apparent statutory ambiguity, all compensation claims must be filed within one year of the injury, and that the one-year bar is mandatory and unextendable.
The court held that all claims for workers' compensation must be filed within one year of the injury date, as required by Section 19(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Section 25(a), which permits claims to be filed 'at any time after the first seven days of disability,' is subject to and limited by the one-year requirement. A claim for additional medical treatment should likewise be filed within the time allowed for compensation claims.
“Section 25 (a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act is "subject" to the provisions of Section 19(a) and when the two provisions are read together we cannot escape the conclusion that all claims for compensation must be filed within one year after the time of the injury.”
Establishes the court's resolution of the statutory conflict through textual hierarchy and the mandatory one-year filing deadline.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceS. H. White was injured on July 13, 1938, while employed by Canada Dry Bottling Company of America, Inc. He did not lose time from work initially, and…
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 Claim For Medical Treatment cases and more on FLexlaw
On July 13, 1938, S. H. White was injured in- an accident while in the employment of Canada Dry Bottling Company of America, Inc. No time was lost from his work and no compensation was paid him but medical benefits were furnished him to December, 1938. A claim for compensation and further medical benefits was filed in September, 1941. The Deputy Commissioner found that the claimant was entitled to compensation for his disability and to further medical treatment. The full Commission approved this award which was on appeal affirmed by the Circuit Court and defendants appealed.
Two questions are presented: (1) Was the claim for compensation filed within the time provided by the Workmen’s Compensation Act? (2) Was the claim for additional medical treatment filed within a reasonable time?
Section 19(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act among other things provides that the “right to compensation for disability under this Act shall be barred unless a claim therefor is filed within one year after the time of injury.” Section 25(a) of the same Act likewise provides that “a claim may be filed at any time after the first seven days of disability following an injury.”
It is admitted that the claimant was injured in line of his employment on July 13, 1938, that no time was lost from his employment, that medical benefits were paid him to December, 1938, and that the claim for compensation and further medical benefits was not filed until September, 1941, more than three years after the injury. There is evidence which shows that his injury grew progressively worse and that claimant was discharged because of inability to perform his work on account of the injury.
*72The claimant contends that since there is a conflict in the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act quoted in the forepart of this opinion, such conflict should be resolved in favor of the claimant and his claim allowed. The Industrial Commission and the Circuit Court appear to have been impressed with this view. It may find support in morals and sympathy but we find nothing in law to support it.
Section 25 (a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is “subject” to the provisions of Section 19(a) and when the two provisions are read together we cannot escape the conclusion that all claims for compensation must be filed within one year after the time of the injury. The permission in Section 25(a) to file a claim “at any time after the first seven days of disability following any injury” must be contemplated by rule of the Commission within the year after the injury as required by Section 19(a) Chapter 17481. In other words, Section 25(a) authorizes the Commission to promulgate rules for filing claims for compensation with it but no rule so promulgated can extend the time more than one year from the injury.
It may be that this interpretation will work harshly in the claimant’s case but if any other rule is adopted there will be no end to the time claimants may invoke the aid of the Commission. It is essential for the protection of those who pay their earnings to the Commission and thus acquire a stake with it to fix some limitation on the time for filing claims. Whether one year is proper is a question for the Legislature to say. A great many cases support this reasoning but we deem it so academic that it is unnecessary to cite them.
On the point of whether or not the claim for additional medical treatment was filed in season it is sufficient to say that the Workmen’s Compensation Act contains no specification determinative of this point but sound reason would not warrant filing such a claim later than the time allowed for making claim-for compensation.
The judgment is reversed.
Reversed.
BUFORD, C. J., THOMAS, SEBRING and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
*73BROWN and CHAPMAN, JJ., dissent.
dissenting:
I dissent from the last paragraph of the foregoing opinion. The statute being silent on the point, I think we should hold that a claim for additional medical treatment or benefits should be filed within a reasonable time which I think was v done under the peculiar facts of this case. I do not think this court should attempt to set any arbitrary time limit applicable to all cases.
BROWN, J.,
dissenting:
I dissent from the last paragraph of the foregoing opinion. The statute being silent on the point, I think we should hold that a claim for additional medical treatment or benefits should be filed within a reasonable time which I think was v done under the peculiar facts of this case. I do not think this court should attempt to set any arbitrary time limit applicable to all cases.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel, 56 So.2d 341 (Fla. 1952)…HOBSON, Justice. Counsel for appellant very frankly confesses that her first question is intended to "present the facts of this cause and to try to convince this Court that their holding in Canada Dry Bottling Co. of Florida v. White, 153 Fla. 70, 13 So. 2d 595, should be reversed." Although counsel has presented authorities from other jurisdictions which sustain the view contrary to the one *342 which we expressed in the case of Canada Dry Bottling Co. v. White, supra, we are not convinced that we should…
-
Cristiani v. City of Sarasota, 65 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1953)…. The running of the statute is not postponed even though the injury may not materialize or be discovered till later. 54 C.J.S., Limitations of Actions, § 169; 34 Am.Jur., Limitations of Actions, § 160; Canada Dry Bottling Co. v. White, 153 Fla. 70, 13 So. 2d 595. There is some controversy about the meaning of the language "or damage” as used in the Statute. The statute deals with “any negligent or wrongful injury or damage to person or property”. We think the phrase “injury or damage to person or property”…
-
Gordon v. City OF Belle Glade, 132 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)…the injury or damage. Any other interpretation placed on the statute would lay it open to endless confusion and uncertainty as to when claims covered by it are barred.” In a workmen’s compensation case, Canada Dry Bottling Co. of Florida v. White, 153 Fla. 70, 13 So. 2d 595, the Florida Supreme Court held that a right to compensa'tion was barred since a claim was not filed within one year after the injury although another provision of the statute provided that claims could be filed at any time after the…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence