Ruzek v. City of Hollywood

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ruzek v. City of Hollywood

384 So. 2d 155, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16772

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 3, 1980·No. No. QQ-479·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The issue on appeal is whether payment of benefits to an injured employee from a [156] municipal pension fund constitutes workmen’s compensation payments thereby tolling the statute of limitations for filing a workmen’s compensation claim?

Pursuant to Treasure Salvors v. Johnson, IRC Order 2-3372 (1978), cert. denied, 374 So.2d 99 (Fla.1979) and Chemstrand v. Enfinger, 231 So.2d 816 (Fla.1970), we find municipal pension fund payments to an injured employee are not workmen’s compensation payments.

Accordingly, the statute of limitations has run precluding appellant from filing a workmen’s compensation claim.

AFFIRMED.

MILLS, C. J., and ERVIN and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The issue on appeal is whether payment of benefits to an injured employee from a [156] municipal pension fund constitutes workmen’s compensation payments thereby tolling the statute of limitations for filing a workmen’s compensation claim?

Pursuant to Treasure Salvors v. Johnson, IRC Order 2-3372 (1978), cert. denied, 374 So.2d 99 (Fla.1979) and Chemstrand v. Enfinger, 231 So.2d 816 (Fla.1970), we find municipal pension fund payments to an injured employee are not workmen’s compensation payments.

Accordingly, the statute of limitations has run precluding appellant from filing a workmen’s compensation claim.

AFFIRMED.

MILLS, C. J., and ERVIN and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

Ruzek v. City of Hollywood, 384 So. 2d 155, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16772 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

384 So. 2d 155 (Ruzek v. City of Hollywood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related