Jenkins Electric v. Mayes

393 So. 2d 44, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19412
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 27, 1981·No. No. VV-398·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the point raised by appellants, finding that claimant’s letter, filed with the Division of Worker’s Compensation, was a sufficient claim to toll the statute of limitations until an amended claim was filed. Because of the concern raised in appellants’ argument, we add that we certainly do not sanction the manner in which appellants were initially notified of the original claim, i. e., by a notice of hearing “on the merits.” However, whatever the procedural deficiencies in this case, they did not operate to make appellee’s original claim invalid.

AFFIRMED.

SHIVERS, SHAW and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins Electric v. Mayes, 393 So. 2d 44, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19412 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

393 So. 2d 44 (Jenkins Electric v. Mayes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pitts v. Nimnicht Chevrolet
569 So. 2d 921 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
McKenney v. School Bd. of Palm Beach County
456 So. 2d 524 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)