Black v. Tomoka State Park

Decision Date20 February 2013
Docket NumberNo. 1D12–3386.,1D12–3386.
Citation106 So.3d 973
PartiesScott BLACK, Appellant, v. TOMOKA STATE PARK and Division of Risk Management/State of Florida, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Mark L. Zientz of the Law Offices of Mark L. Zientz, P.A., Miami, and Mark Zimmerman, Deland, for Appellant.

C. Anthony Schoder, Jr., of Smith, Schoder & Bledsoe, LLP, Daytona Beach, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

In this workers' compensation case, Claimant appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying, as barred by the statute of limitations, all claims asserted in his petition for benefits (PFB) filed in February 2011. Claimant raises two arguments in the alternative to each other. Because we conclude reversal is warranted on one of those arguments, we decline to address the other.

Longley v. Miami–Dade County School Board, 82 So.3d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), is dispositive. The facts of Longley are analogous to the facts here. In both cases, the claimants had filed a prior PFB, compliant with section 440.192, Florida Statutes, asserting both a claim for medical benefits and claims for attorney's fees and costs. In both cases, the claims for medical benefits in those prior PFBs were resolved—by agreement in Longley (memorialized by letter cancelling mediation), and here by Claimant's voluntary dismissal of the PFB. In both cases, the claims for fees and costs were expressly reserved upon (not dismissed)—in Longley, by the letter's statement that “there are no other outstanding issues other than attorney's fees and costs,” and here by the wording of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, “reserving any claim for attorney's fees and costs relating thereto.” In both cases, the outstanding claims for fees and costs were not thereafter resolved, and were not dismissed for lack of prosecution under the authority of section 440.25(4)(i), Florida Statutes. In both cases, a subsequent PFB (the disposition of which was appealed in each), seeking benefits for the same date of accident, was denied as barred by the statute of limitations. And in both cases, the same rule applies: pending claims asserted via PFB—even claims for fees and costs—toll the statute of limitations.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

LEWIS, CLARK, and RAY, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • v. Limith
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 9, 2014
    ...claim for attorney's fees and costs has “forever stripped” its right to assert the statute of limitations. See Black v. Tomoka State Park, 106 So.3d 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (reaffirming rule set forth in Longley v. Miami–Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 82 So.3d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), that pending c......
  • Hosps. E., LLC v. Hampton
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 10, 2021
    ...evidence that the amount had been resolved—tolled the statute of limitations. Both relied on the authority of Black v. Tomoka State Park , 106 So. 3d 973, 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ("[T]he same rule [as in Longley v. Miami-Dade County School Board , 82 So. 3d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) ] applie......
  • Limith v. Lenox on the Lake
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 17, 2015
    ...Florida Statutes, the authority for motions to dismiss, applies to pending fee claims asserted by PFB. See Black v. Tomoka State Park, 106 So.3d 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Although the predecessor JCC had technically dismissed the 2011 PFB and reserved jurisdiction over the claims for fees an......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT