Court affirms that payment of attorney’s fees does not extend statute of limitations as payment is neither payment of compensation nor provides medical treatment, the only two events that will extend statute of limitations under subsection 440.19(2).

The claimant sustained a compensable injury in 2011, and in 2013, filed a petition for benefits. The judge entered an order in 2015 awarding the benefits, including fee and cost entitlement. However, the judge reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount if the parties were unable to amicably resolve the issue.

In 2020, the claimant filed a new petition for benefits. The employer/carrier asserted that no benefits had been provided since 2016 and denied based on statue of limitations. The claimant argued that the judge’s order reserving jurisdiction over the amount of fees and costs tolled the statute of limitations. The Judge of Compensation claims agreed. The employer/carrier appealed.

The First District Court of Appeal completed a de novo review and agreed with the employer/carrier that reservation over the amount does not toll the statute limitations because amount and entitlement are distinct for fees and costs. 

Both the claimant and the judge relied on Black v. Tomoka State Park, 106 So. 3d 973, 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), which held that pending claims asserted via a petition for benefits, including fees and costs, will toll the statute of limitations.

The court pointed to Sanchez v. American Airlines, 169 So. 3d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), which held that the payment of attorney’s fees does not extend the statute of limitations because “the payment of an attorney’s fee is neither a payment of compensation nor the furnishing of medical treatment,” which are the only two events that will extend the statute of limitations under subsection 440.19(2). 

The court distinguished the Black case because in that case neither amount nor entitlement had been determined. In the instant case, entitlement had been resolved and the only reservation was on the amount. Therefore, the rule stated in the Black case does not apply to claims solely for the amount of attorney’s fees or costs. The First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for entry of an order denying the 2020 petition as barred by the statute of limitations.
 

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}