Health Central v. Cesar

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Health Central v. Cesar

752 So. 2d 97, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1928, 2000 WL 220429

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 28, 2000

DocketNo. 1D99-614

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 752 So. 2d 97 (Health Central v. Cesar) 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

Health Central v. Cesar, 752 So. 2d 97, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1928, 2000 WL 220429 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the judge of compensation claims erred in precluding the employer and carrier from asserting a defense based on the statute of limitations. An employer who fails to provide an employee with the informational brochure required by section 440.185, Florida Statutes may be estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense, see Gaines v. Orange County Public Utilities, 710 So.2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), but estoppel is not a bar to the defense in the present case because the claimant had actual knowledge of her rights under the worker’s compensation laws. See Solar Pane Insulating Glass, Inc. v. Hanssen, 727 So.2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Accordingly, we must reverse the final order awarding benefits to the claimant.

WEBSTER, KAHN and PADOYANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the judge of compensation claims erred in precluding the employer and carrier from asserting a defense based on the statute of limitations. An employer who fails to provide an employee with the informational brochure required by section 440.185, Florida Statutes may be estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense, see Gaines v. Orange County Public Utilities, 710 So.2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), but estoppel is not a bar to the defense in the present case because the claimant had actual knowledge of her rights under the worker’s compensation laws. See Solar Pane Insulating Glass, Inc. v. Hanssen, 727 So.2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Accordingly, we must reverse the final order awarding benefits to the claimant.

WEBSTER, KAHN and PADOYANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

752 So. 2d 97, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1928, 2000 WL 220429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/health-central-v-cesar-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack