Arboleda v. Premier Beverage Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Arboleda v. Premier Beverage Co.

739 So. 2d 655, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10632, 1999 WL 594263

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 10, 1999

DocketNo. 98-3757

StatusPublished

This text of 739 So. 2d 655 (Arboleda v. Premier Beverage Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arboleda v. Premier Beverage Co., 739 So. 2d 655, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10632, 1999 WL 594263 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ALLEN, J.

The claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order by which his claim was denied as untimely under section 440.19(1), Fla. Stat. (1991). The petition for benefits was filed within two years of the employer/carrier’s payment of medical bills, but more than two years after the medical services were performed. Because the care was not obtained from an authorized doctor, and there is no suggestion that the employer/carrier accepted responsibility for such care before payment of the bills, ABC Liquors, Inc. v. Creed, 573 So.2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 584 So.2d 997 (Fla.1991), indicates that the care was not “furnished by the employer” until the bills were paid. Southern Bell v. MacDonald, 671 So.2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), and Whiteman v. United Parcel Service, 438 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), which was cited by the judge, do not apply here as those cases involved care rendered by authorized doctors. In accordance with Creed the claim in the present case, by a petition filed within two years of payment for the unauthorized care, was timely under section 440.19(1).

The appealed order is reversed and the case is remanded.

JOANOS and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ALLEN, J.

The claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order by which his claim was denied as untimely under section 440.19(1), Fla. Stat. (1991). The petition for benefits was filed within two years of the employer/carrier’s payment of medical bills, but more than two years after the medical services were performed. Because the care was not obtained from an authorized doctor, and there is no suggestion that the employer/carrier accepted responsibility for such care before payment of the bills, ABC Liquors, Inc. v. Creed, 573 So.2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 584 So.2d 997 (Fla.1991), indicates that the care was not “furnished by the employer” until the bills were paid. Southern Bell v. MacDonald, 671 So.2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), and Whiteman v. United Parcel Service, 438 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), which was cited by the judge, do not apply here as those cases involved care rendered by authorized doctors. In accordance with Creed the claim in the present case, by a petition filed within two years of payment for the unauthorized care, was timely under section 440.19(1).

The appealed order is reversed and the case is remanded.

JOANOS and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

739 So. 2d 655, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10632, 1999 WL 594263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arboleda-v-premier-beverage-co-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack