Boyd v. Florida Memorial College, BC-91

• Decision Date: 18 September 1985
• Docket Number: No. BC-91,BC-91
• Citation: 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2159,475 So.2d 990
• Parties: 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2159 Ronald D. BOYD, Appellant, v. FLORIDA MEMORIAL COLLEGE, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 990

475 So.2d 990

10 Fla. L. Weekly 2159

Ronald D. BOYD, Appellant, v. FLORIDA MEMORIAL COLLEGE, et al., Appellees.

No. BC-91.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

First District.

Sept. 18, 1985.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 18, 1985.

Pamela Fleischmann, and Joseph C. Segor, Miami, for appellant.

Sally R. Doerner, of Walton Lantaff Schroeder & Carson, Miami, for appellees.

SHIVERS, Judge.

Claimant appeals the deputy commissioner's finding that his claim for medical benefits was barred by the statute of limitations. We reverse.

The claimant in this case suffered a compensable work-related injury on June 26, 1980, and was provided with medical care and TTD benefits through October 31, 1980, and with wage-loss benefits through February 4, 1981. On March 16, 1980, for reasons not relevant to this appeal, claimant began serving a three-year federal prison sentence. While in prison, he made several attempts to receive information regarding workers' compensation benefits from a Ms. Arciola, the adjuster handling his claim. The first contact was by letter dated May 15, 1981, in which claimant informed Arciola that he was in prison and was receiving physical therapy. He stated that, because of the injury, he had not been given a "duty assignment" and thus was making no money. He asked Arciola to investigate the matter.

Claimant wrote a second letter to Arciola on October 9, 1981, informing her that he had been transferred to Tallahassee, that a doctor had ordered that he was not eligible to "work for the industry," that he was doing light work in the clothing room but had received no pay so far. He stated that he had signed a release for medical records as requested and asked Arciola to respond without delay. When claimant failed to receive a response to his October 1981 letter, he telephoned Arciola on January 13, 1982. As to their conversation on that date, Arciola testified at the hearing below as follows:

Mr. Boyd contacted me to inquire about possible benefits while he was in prison and I explained to him at that time that there was absolutely nothing I could do for him as long as he was in prison and if he continued to have a problem after he was out of prison, that he should contact me then. He advised that he would be getting out in September and I actually made a file notation that I expected to hear from him at that time.

Arciola's "file notation" stated the following:

Claimant called from prison. Explained we could not pay while he is in prison. He believes he is getting out in September and I'm sure I will hear from him then.

The claimant, Mr. Boyd, testified at the hearing that he did not tell Arciola when he would be released from prison, as he did not know himself until two weeks prior to his release.

The statute of limitations on Boyd's claim ran on February 4, 1983. Section 440.19(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1979). Boyd was released from prison on July 11, 1983, and filed a claim for benefits on August 3, 1983. At a hearing limited to the statute of limitations issue, claimant alleged that the Employer/Carrier (E/C) were estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense since claimant had relied to his detriment on the carrier's misrepresentation. The deputy commissioner found each element of estoppel to be missing and held that Boyd's claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

On appeal of the deputy commissioner's order, claimant has again raised the estoppel argument and analogizes the instant case to Quality Shell Homes & Supply Company v. Roley, 186 So.2d 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). In that case, an injured construction worker failed to file a workers' compensation claim in reliance on his employer's erroneous statement that the company had no workers' compensation insurance. As...