StatutE oF LiMitationS CLaRiFiED
Workers Compensation Section Chairs : AnthonyCortese – AnthonyV . Cortese-AttorneyatLaw & Ya ’ SheakaWilliams – Quintairos , Prieto , Wood & Boyer , P . A .
the First District Court of appeal revisited the Longley decision … and clarified the tolling of the statute of limitations in workers ’ Compensation cases .
The Workers ’ Compensation world was stunned in 2012 with the decision in Longley v . Miami-Dade Cnty . Sch . Bd , as it addressed the statute of limitations . 1 Since then , Employer / Carriers ( E / Cs ) have been racing to file “ Longley ” motions to compel the filing of a Verified Petition for Attorney ’ s Fees and Costs to avoid the tolling of the statute of limitations ( SOL ) based on a reservation on attorney ’ s fees and costs entitlement and amount . The First District Court of Appeal revisited the Longley decision in Hospitals East , LLC d / b / a Kindred Hospital Dash North Florida / Sedgwick Claims Services Inc . vs . Gloria Hampton 2 and clarified the tolling of the SOL in Workers ’ Compensation cases .
In a per curiam decision , the First District Court of Appeal reversed the Judge of Compensation Claims ’ ( JCC ) holding that rejected the E / C ’ s statute of limitations defense . In Hampton , the injured worker sustained compensable work accidents in 2011 and 2013 . In 2015 , a Petition was litigated and the JCC ruled in favor of the injured worker and ruled that an Employer / Carrier paid fee was due ,
reserving ruling on the amount of the fee . Subsequently a Petition for Benefits was filed in 2020 seeking medical benefits , attorney ’ s fees and costs . The E / C denied entitlement to benefits and raised the statute of limitations defense asserting that the statute of limitations barred the claims that were raised pursuant to Florida Statute § 40.19 . The injured worker disagreed and argued that there was a reservation of jurisdiction on the amount of the attorney ’ s fees and costs to be paid by the E / C , thereby tolling the statute of limitations . The injured worker cited Black v . Tomoka State Park 3 and Longley in support of its position that the SOL was tolled . The JCC agreed and granted benefits . The E / C appealed .
The First District Court of Appeal agreed with the E / C and found that the SOL had run . The court further explained that a reservation on the amount of attorney ’ s fees and costs does not toll the statute of limitations . It noted that entitlement and amount are distinct as it relates to fees and costs . As the First District Court of Appeal outlined in 2015 in Sanchez v . American Airlines , the payment of attorney ’ s fees does not extend the statute of limitation because the payment of an attorney ’ s fees is neither a payment of compensation nor the furnishing of medical benefits , two events in a case that will extend the SOL pursuant to the statute . 4
The First District Court of Appeal also addressed the jurisdiction of the JCC . Pursuant to Fla . R . W . C . P . 60Q-6.124 ( 3 )( c )( 5 ) where both the entitlement and amount are contested , a hearing may be bifurcated on request and the JCC shall require a party seeking fees to file a verified motion . However , a JCC may require a party to do so if the entitlement has already been determined . The court further distinguished Longley and Black from this case because neither the amount nor entitlement were determined in those cases . However , in Hampton , the amount of fees or costs was reserved , but entitlement was clear . Therefore , the SOL did not toll , and entitlement to benefits was denied . n
Author : Ya ' Sheaka C . Williams - Quintairos , Prieto , Wood & Boyer , P . A .
Learn more about Joining the Lawyer referral service at hillsbar . com .
5 8 M a y - J u n 2 0 2 2 | H C B a L a W y E R