relatioNbaCkdoCtriNeappliesiNworkers ’ CoMpeNsatioN
Workers Compensation Section Chairs : AnthonyCortese – AnthonyV . Cortese-AttorneyatLaw & Ya ’ SheakaWilliams – Eraclides , Gelman , Hall , Indek , Goodman
In what appears to be a case of first impression under Florida workers compensation law , Estate of McKenzie v . HI Rise Crane , 1 the First District Court of Appeals held that the “ relation back doctrine ” regarding the administration of estates applies in a workers ’ compensation case . Ronald McKenzie asserted that he sustained serious injuries on January 26 , 2018 . On February 15 , 2018 , an attorney for Mr . McKenzie filed petitions for benefits ( PFBs ). But Mr . McKenzie died in August 2018 and his attorney then voluntarily dismissed the PFBs . The record does not indicate the cause of death . There was no record activity until January 24 , 2020 , when the same attorney filed a PFB for payment of medical bills and indemnity from January until August of 2018 . The PFB named the decedent ’ s sister as Claimant and as personal representative of his estate . The signature page used on the 2020 PFB was a copy of the one signed by the decedent in 2018 .
At a deposition in August of 2020 , the Employer / Carrier learned that the petition for administration of the estate was not filed until January 29 , 2020 , and the sister was not formally appointed as personal representative until July 30 , 2020 . The Claimant ’ s attorney admitted
thefirstdistrictCourtof appealsheldthatthe “ relationbackdoctrine ” regardingthe administrationofestates appliesinaworkers ’ compensationcase .
that he knew the petition for administration had not been filed when he filed the PFB , and said he filed the PFB when he did to avoid missing the statute of limitations . The Employer / Carrier contended that the PFB should be dismissed as a nullity and sham , because the signature was from a dead man and the petition for administration was not even filed when the PFB was filed . The Claimant ’ s counsel moved to amend the PFB to add the sister ’ s signature as Claimant on the acknowledgement page . At a hearing on whether to allow amendment or whether to dismiss the PFB , the Judge of Compensation Claims denied the motion to amend and dismissed the January 24 , 2020 PFB as null and void .
The First District reversed and remanded , based in part on the probate code and in part on the workers ’ compensation statute . The relation back doctrine states “ that a personal representative ’ s powers relate back in time to give acts by the person appointed , occurring before appointment and beneficial to the estate , the same effect as those occurring after the appointment .” 2 The appointment as personal representative on
July 30 , 2020 , related back to the PFB ’ s filing of January 24 , 2020 .
With regard to the signature on the PFB by the decedent instead of the sister , the decision cited the ruling in Padilla v . Collins Contracting , 3 which states that Florida Statutes section 440.105 ( 7 ) does not provide for dismissal when a person making a claim fails to provide the statutory acknowledge - ment with the PFB . Instead the court reasoned that it provides for a suspension of benefits until the claimant signs the acknowledge ment . 4 The First District then held that the July 30 , 2020 appointment of the sister as personal representative related back to give her the power to make the filing of the PFB of January 24 , 2020 . Therefore , it concluded that the petition to amend to add her signature should have been granted . n
1
No . 1D20-3307 ( Fla . 1st DCA Aug . 19 , 2021 ).
2
Id . at 5 ( quoting Fla . Stat . § 733.601 ( 2020 )).
3
22 So . 3d 124 , 125 ( Fla . 1st DCA 2009 ). 4
Estate of McKenzie , supra at 5 .
Author : Anthony V . Cortese – Anthony V . Cortese , Attorney at Law
6 2 j a n - f e b 2 0 2 2 | H C b a L a W Y e R