Colvin v. Colvin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Colvin v. Colvin

544 So. 2d 269, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1260, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2814, 1989 WL 52826

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 23, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 544 So. 2d 269 (Colvin v. Colvin) 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

Colvin v. Colvin, 544 So. 2d 269, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1260, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2814, 1989 WL 52826 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The claimant in this Workers’ Compensation case appeals an order denying a claim for temporary partial wage loss benefits or [270]*270wage loss benefits. The claim was denied on the ground that the claim was not timely under section 440.15(3)(b). We reverse and remand for a determination on claimant’s entitlement to any wage loss without deciding the merits of the deputy commissioner’s application of this statute.

The claim was filed on October 21, 1987. It appears from the record that the Employer/Carrier (E/C) furnished medical care from Dr. Riddick on July 11, 1986 and again on November 10, 1987, after the claim was filed. On the latter visit claimant reported experiencing pain and Dr. Rid-dick prescribed anti-inflammatories. Claimant’s continued receipt of treatment provided by the E/C (whether remedial or palliative) extended the limitations period for filing his claim. Section 440.19(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1979); City of Orlando v. Blackburn, 519 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Tower Chemical Co. v. Hubbard, 527 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SHIVERS, WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The claimant in this Workers’ Compensation case appeals an order denying a claim for temporary partial wage loss benefits or [270]*270wage loss benefits. The claim was denied on the ground that the claim was not timely under section 440.15(3)(b). We reverse and remand for a determination on claimant’s entitlement to any wage loss without deciding the merits of the deputy commissioner’s application of this statute.

The claim was filed on October 21, 1987. It appears from the record that the Employer/Carrier (E/C) furnished medical care from Dr. Riddick on July 11, 1986 and again on November 10, 1987, after the claim was filed. On the latter visit claimant reported experiencing pain and Dr. Rid-dick prescribed anti-inflammatories. Claimant’s continued receipt of treatment provided by the E/C (whether remedial or palliative) extended the limitations period for filing his claim. Section 440.19(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1979); City of Orlando v. Blackburn, 519 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Tower Chemical Co. v. Hubbard, 527 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SHIVERS, WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

544 So. 2d 269, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1260, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2814, 1989 WL 52826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colvin-v-colvin-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack