Deere v. SARASOTA COUNTY SCHOOL BD., 1D03-2714.
| Decision Date | 18 August 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D03-2714.,1D03-2714. |
| Citation | 880 So.2d 825 |
| Parties | Suzanne DEERE, Appellant, v. SARASOTA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD and Integrated Administrators, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Keith A. Mann, Sarasota, for Appellant.
Ben Cristal, of Sponsler, Bennett, Jacobs & Cristal, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.
We reverse the order denying workers' compensation benefits on the ground that the statute of limitations had run because the JCC did not consider Appellant's estoppel argument.
Appellant was at work as a pre-kindergarten aide on October 27, 1999, when she tripped over toys and hurt her lower back. She made a timely application for workers' compensation and was authorized for treatment with at least three doctors. The three found her to have reached maximum medical improvement by April 26, 2000. On June 1, 2000, Appellant was involved in a car accident. In January 2001, she visited one of her previously authorized doctors to find out whether her compensable injury had been aggravated by the car accident; the doctor refused to examine her because she had been in a subsequent intervening accident. Thereafter, Appellant allegedly called senior claims adjuster Marjorie Lane and spoke to Lane or her nurse; when Appellant asked what to do next, she was told "there is nothing we can do now."
On October 4, 2002, Appellant filed a petition for workers' compensation benefits; the employer/carrier (E/C) put forth a statute of limitations defense in denying authorization. On November 8, 2002, Appellant filed a second petition for benefits; the record does not contain a response to this second petition. After a hearing, the JCC denied benefits on the ground that Appellant's petitions were barred by the expiration of the time set forth in the statute of limitations. Appellant is entitled to reversal and remand because the JCC failed to address her argument that the E/C was estopped from denying benefits on that basis because of its advice to her that "there is nothing we can do now."
Appellant's petition was untimely under section 440.19, Florida Statutes (2002), because her claim was made more than two years after her injury and more than one year after her last receipt of benefits. However, section 440.19(4) provides that an E/C may be estopped from raising a statute of limitations defense. Because the E/C complied with the notice requirements of sections 440.185 and 440.055, Florida Statutes, Appellant can demonstrate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Varricchio v. St. Lucie Cnty. Clerk of Courts
...and (3) the Claimant changed her position to her detriment because of the misrepresentation. See, e.g., Deere v. Sarasota Cty. Sch. Bd. , 880 So.2d 825, 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). We acknowledge that estoppel may be a viable bar to retroactive assignment of MMI or work restrictions under cert......
-
Schiano v. City of Hollywood Police Department/Employer's Mut., Inc.
...misrepresentation; and (3) Claimant changed his position to his detriment because of the misrepresentation. Deere v. Sarasota Cty. Sch. Bd. , 880 So. 2d 825, 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Section 440.19(4) does not include a requirement of intent. Id. ("Where an E/C misleads a claimant about his......
-
City of Dania Beach v. Zipoli
...case, the elements of estoppel—detrimental reliance on a party's misrepresentation—were established. See Deere v. Sarasota Cty. Sch. Bd., 880 So.2d 825, 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ("To demonstrate estoppel, Appellant must show that (1) the E/C misrepresented a material fact; (2) Appellant reli......
-
Deere v. Sarasota County School Board, 1D04-4326.
...appeal, this court remanded this case for the JCC to consider whether appellant demonstrated estoppel. See Deere v. Sarasota County Sch. Bd., 880 So.2d 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Appellant had the burden to make this showing. See id. at 826. The JCC found that appellant did not change her pos......