importAntdeCisionsontHestAtuteoflimitAtions
Workers Compensation Section Chairs : AnthonyCortese – AnthonyV . Cortese-AttorneyatLaw & Ya ’ SheakaWilliams – Eraclides , Gelman , Hall , Indek , Goodman
thestatuteoflimitationsdoes notbegintorunandistolled underthesespecificfacts .
Practitioners should be aware of two critical statute of limitations decisions that reinterpret the deadline for claiming benefits in certain situations .
The first is the State of Florida workers compensation decision in Hospitals East v . Hampton . 1 The statute of limitations for filing a claim for workers compensation is two years from the date of injury . But if indemnity or medical benefits are provided , it is extended for a year from the last date of such payment . 2 The rule had been that after a favorable stipulation or ruling for the Claimant on benefits , if there is a reservation of jurisdiction over entitlement and amount of attorney ’ s fees to be awarded to the Claimant ’ s counsel from the Employer / Carrier , the statute of limitations does not begin to run and is tolled under these specific facts . 3 In Hospitals East , the judge ruled in favor of the Claimant on the issue of entitlement to attorney ’ s fees and only reserved jurisdiction over the amount to be awarded . The First District ruled that reserving only on the issue of the amount of attorney ’ s fees to be awarded does not toll the statute of limitations .
Accordingly , a claim for additional medical care was denied .
A Defense Base Act decision last year , Rodriguez v . Triple Canopy , 4 is authoritative for the statute of limitations in Longshore and Defense Base Act for Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder ( PTSD ) claims . It also has persuasive implications for other PTSD claims , such as Florida First Responder PTSD claims .
The relevant statute of limitations facts of Rodriguez were that the claimant was exposed to explosions in Iraq in 2008 , which rendered him unconscious , damaged his hearing , and killed two persons next to him . He continued to work for the Employer until 2010 , without a claim or treatment . He was not rehired . He had symptoms immediately in 2008 , but he did not have a psychological evaluation or begin psychological treatment until 2016 . He filed a claim in March of 2018 for psychological care , which was within two years of the psychological diagnosis of PTSD . But his claims for psychological care were dismissed as untimely .
The Benefits Review Board reversed and remanded , holding that PTSD is an occupational
injury for the Claimant ’ s job in a combat zone , and noted that an occupational injury has a two-year statute of limitations from the date of awareness . It also ruled that until the psychologist diagnosed the claimant with work-related PTSD , there was inadequate awareness of the injury , the extent of injury and of causation , for the statute of limitations to begin to run .
At first glance , a claim for benefits filed eight years after an explosion that caused immediate symptoms would appear to be untimely . But after an analysis of PTSD , the Board ruled for a substantially delayed date for the start of the running of the statute of limitations . Although it is not authoritative under other statutes , it is persuasive . It may also indicate a likelihood of similar rulings about PTSD in other claims , such as for First Responders in Florida . n
1
No . 1D20-2961 ( November 10 , 2021 ). 2
Fla . Stat . § 440.19 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ).
3
Black v . Tomoka State Park , 106 So . 3d 973 ( Fla . 1st DCA 2013 ).
4
BRB No . 20-0520 ( May 27 , 2021 ).
Author : Anthony V . Cortese – Anthony V . Cortese , Attorney at Law
learn more about joining the lawyer referral service at hillsbar . com .
M a r - a p r 2 0 2 2 | H C B a L a W Y E r
5 9