Coburn v. Polk County Board of County Commissioners

51 So. 3d 551, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19947, 2010 WL 5558346
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 21, 2010
DocketNo. 1D10-0251
StatusPublished

This text of 51 So. 3d 551 (Coburn v. Polk County Board of County Commissioners) 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
Coburn v. Polk County Board of County Commissioners, 51 So. 3d 551, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19947, 2010 WL 5558346 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Bobby Coburn, claimant, appeals a final order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) which determined that Co-burn’s claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations in section 440.19(2), Florida Statutes (2009). Claimant sought authorization of an appointment with an authorized treating provider to address problems with claimant’s hearing aids that had been provided as a result of his com-pensable hearing loss caused by injuries incurred in a 1999 industrial accident. Based on a finding that more than one year had passed since the last payment, treatment or care relating to the hearing loss, the JCC concluded the statute of limitations barred the claim.

Here, it is undisputed that the claimant’s hearing aids are prosthetic devices which are being used to mitigate the effects of a compensable injury. Under our recent holding in Gore v. Lee County School Board, 43 So.3d 846, 848-49 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), the statute of limitations would have been tolled, if the employer or carrier had knowledge of claimant’s continued use. Such knowledge is an issue of fact not reached by the JCC (most likely because the order on appeal was entered without the benefit of our decision in Gore). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the JCC need only determine whether the employer or carrier had knowledge, whether express or implied, of the claimant’s continuous use of his hearing aids. See Gore, 43 So.3d at 850; Sapp v. Warner, 105 Fla. 245, 141 So. 124, 127 (1932) (explaining distinction between express actual notice and implied actual notice).

REVERSED.

KAHN, VAN NORTWICK, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Gore v. Lee County School Board
43 So. 3d 846 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Sapp v. Warner
144 So. 481 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 So. 3d 551, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19947, 2010 WL 5558346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coburn-v-polk-county-board-of-county-commissioners-fladistctapp-2010.