Parry v. South Miami Hospital

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Parry v. South Miami Hospital

778 So. 2d 997, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7594, 2000 WL 795294

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 22, 2000

DocketNo. 1D99-1361

StatusPublished

This text of 778 So. 2d 997 (Parry v. South Miami Hospital) 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

Parry v. South Miami Hospital, 778 So. 2d 997, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7594, 2000 WL 795294 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The claimant in this workers’ compensation case seeks review of an order holding that her claim was barred by the running of the statute of limitations. The uncon-tradicted medical evidence provided by her authorized treating physician establishes that the claimant was treated for symptoms related to her February 12, 1992, industrial accident on February 14, 1992, October 26, 1993, October 25, 1994, and August 15,1996. There was, therefore, no two-year lapse between treatments before the claimant filed her claim on March 25, 1997. As a result, the claim was not barred by the two-year statute of limitations contained in section 440.19(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1991). The decision to the contrary rendered by the judge of compensation claims was, accordingly, error. See Gilbert v. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, 674 So.2d 818, 821-22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (receipt of medical care from an authorized provider at least once every two years for injuries causally related to the industrial accident tolls the statute of limitations despite the claimant’s failure to request the employer and carrier to pay for the care); Bray v. Electronic Door-Lift, Inc., 558 So.2d 43, 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (a judge of compensation claims may not reject uncontradicted medical testimony without a reasonable explanation). Therefore, we reverse.

REVERSED.

ERVIN, WOLF and WEBSTER, 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 seeks review of an order holding that her claim was barred by the running of the statute of limitations. The uncon-tradicted medical evidence provided by her authorized treating physician establishes that the claimant was treated for symptoms related to her February 12, 1992, industrial accident on February 14, 1992, October 26, 1993, October 25, 1994, and August 15,1996. There was, therefore, no two-year lapse between treatments before the claimant filed her claim on March 25, 1997. As a result, the claim was not barred by the two-year statute of limitations contained in section 440.19(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1991). The decision to the contrary rendered by the judge of compensation claims was, accordingly, error. See Gilbert v. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, 674 So.2d 818, 821-22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (receipt of medical care from an authorized provider at least once every two years for injuries causally related to the industrial accident tolls the statute of limitations despite the claimant’s failure to request the employer and carrier to pay for the care); Bray v. Electronic Door-Lift, Inc., 558 So.2d 43, 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (a judge of compensation claims may not reject uncontradicted medical testimony without a reasonable explanation). Therefore, we reverse.

REVERSED.

ERVIN, WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

778 So. 2d 997, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7594, 2000 WL 795294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parry-v-south-miami-hospital-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack