Juarez v. Burger King 22

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Juarez v. Burger King 22

638 So. 2d 623, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6533, 1994 WL 313732

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 5, 1994

DocketNo. 92-2006

StatusPublished

This text of 638 So. 2d 623 (Juarez v. Burger King 22) 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

Juarez v. Burger King 22, 638 So. 2d 623, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6533, 1994 WL 313732 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review an order of the judge of compensation claims determining that the claim of Marina Juarez for workers’ compensation benefits is barred for failure to file the claim within two years of her industrial accident. See § 440.19(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1985). We formerly noted that section 440.19’s two-year limitations period “does not commence until a reasonable person would recognize ‘the nature, seriousness and probable com-pensable character of his injury or disease.’ ” Paulk v. Berkeley Florist Supply, 574 So.2d 238, 240 (Fla. 1st DCA) (citation omitted), review denied, 584 So.2d 997 (Fla.1991). We therefore remand this case for the determination required by Paulk.

It is so ordered.

ALLEN, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have for review an order of the judge of compensation claims determining that the claim of Marina Juarez for workers’ compensation benefits is barred for failure to file the claim within two years of her industrial accident. See § 440.19(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1985). We formerly noted that section 440.19’s two-year limitations period “does not commence until a reasonable person would recognize ‘the nature, seriousness and probable com-pensable character of his injury or disease.’ ” Paulk v. Berkeley Florist Supply, 574 So.2d 238, 240 (Fla. 1st DCA) (citation omitted), review denied, 584 So.2d 997 (Fla.1991). We therefore remand this case for the determination required by Paulk.

It is so ordered.

ALLEN, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

638 So. 2d 623, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6533, 1994 WL 313732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juarez-v-burger-king-22-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack