Barrett v. Douglas Fertilizer & Chemical

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barrett v. Douglas Fertilizer & Chemical

702 So. 2d 609, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13991, 1997 WL 764512

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 15, 1997

DocketNo. 97-1565

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 702 So. 2d 609 (Barrett v. Douglas Fertilizer & Chemical) 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

Barrett v. Douglas Fertilizer & Chemical, 702 So. 2d 609, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13991, 1997 WL 764512 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse this workers’ compensation order denying appellant’s claim on the ground that it was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The claim, which was filed on November 19, 1992, was filed within two years of appellant’s last injurious exposure to certain herbicides and pesticides at work. See Tokyo House, Inc. v. Hsin Chu, 597 So.2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (on mot. for clarification) (stating that in repeated trauma or exposure cases, an accidental injury may result from the cumulative effect of multiple exposures or traumas, which constitute repeated accidents); City of Miami v. Tomberlin, 492 So.2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (holding that although claimant was aware of lung and hearing injuries caused by exposure to noise and pollution at work as early as 1970, his 1984 claim was not barred by the statute of limitations, because his injuries resulted from ongoing exposure when he filed the claim).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

ERVIN, KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse this workers’ compensation order denying appellant’s claim on the ground that it was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The claim, which was filed on November 19, 1992, was filed within two years of appellant’s last injurious exposure to certain herbicides and pesticides at work. See Tokyo House, Inc. v. Hsin Chu, 597 So.2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (on mot. for clarification) (stating that in repeated trauma or exposure cases, an accidental injury may result from the cumulative effect of multiple exposures or traumas, which constitute repeated accidents); City of Miami v. Tomberlin, 492 So.2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (holding that although claimant was aware of lung and hearing injuries caused by exposure to noise and pollution at work as early as 1970, his 1984 claim was not barred by the statute of limitations, because his injuries resulted from ongoing exposure when he filed the claim).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

ERVIN, KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

702 So. 2d 609, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13991, 1997 WL 764512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-douglas-fertilizer-chemical-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack